# RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

Contract No. EP-W-06-021

Version 1.1 Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report October 2006
Supplemental Remedial Investigation State Marine Superfund Site Port Arthur, Texas

Remedial Action Contract No. EP-W-06-021 Task Order No. 0002-RICO-06BX

In Association With: Weston Solutions Geo-Marine, Inc. E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Arrowhead Contracting, Inc.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)

# Version 1.1

Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report

State Marine Superfund Site Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas

Remedial Action Contract No. EP-W-06-021 EPA Task Order No. 0002-RICO-06BX CH2M HILL Project No. 344479 DCN 0002-02009

Prepared for: 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared by: CH2M HILL, INC

October 2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC ES-1 OCTOBER 2006 

# Executive Summary

This report documents the results of the Supplemen tal Remedial Investigation (RI) performed for the State Marine Superfund (SMS) Site located in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. This Supplemental RI Report summarizes the data collected during the Supplement RI field investigation. The data collected were also used to support th e completion of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) and the Supplemental B aseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA)
, contained within Appendix E of this report.

The SMS Site is located on Pleasure Islet, within Sabine Lake. Pleasure Islet was constructed of dredge spoils from the construction and routine main tenance of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The City of Port Arthur operated a municipal landfill on Pleasure Islet (including portions of the SMS Site) beginning in 1963. The landfill was closed in acco rdance with Texas Department of Health (TDH) requirements in December 1974. The SMS Site w as operated as a barge cleaning and maintenance facility beginning in about 1973. A refining operati on was also located onsite during the early 1980s.

An RI was conducted at the Site in 2001 to determ ine the nature and extent of contamination present at the SMS Site. Data collected during the RI indi cated that Site soils, sediments, and ground water have been impacted with metals and SVOCs. During the RI, difficulties encountered during drilling prevented the collection of subsurface soil samples over much of the Site.
A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), BHHRA, and BERA were performed for the SMS Site in 2005. The BHHRA indicated that potential risks are posed to human receptors by Site sediments through ingestion of fish. However, the BHHRA concluded th at actual fish tissue data collected from Sabine
Lake showed results that were much lower than the modeled results included in the BHHRA. The BERA identified potential risks to ecological receptor s by Site sediments. The primary risks posed are to benthic organisms. Eight areas were identified where Site sediments exceeded Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for ecological risks. Th e BERA also indicated that the sediments might have been contaminated through the ground water-to- sediment pathway. The BERA did indicate that updated Site sediment data might yield results that indicate PRGs are no longer exceeded in Site sediments. In addition, Site stakeholders e xpressed concerns that the former wastewater impoundments might be the source of ground water contam ination at the Site that then impacted Site
sediments. In order to address these concerns, a Supplemental RI was performed in May and June 2006.SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC ES-2 OCTOBER 2006 

# The Supplemental RI included the completion of seven soil borings and collection of soil samples at 17 locations. Five of the soil borings were comple ted within the area of the former wastewater impoundments to determine if soils in this area were the source of metals and SVOCs in ground water. Two borings were advan ced downgradient (east) of the former wastewater impoundments and completed as monitor wells.

Three monitor wells (two new wells and one exis ting well) completed within the shallow perched ground water zone at the Site were sampled to de termine the concentrations of metals and SVOCs present. These wells were located downgradient of the former wastewater impoundments and between the impoundments and Sabine Lake. Ground water sampling was perform ed to determine the concentrations of metals and SVOCs in ground water and determine the potential for the ground
water to be a source of the sediment contamination.
Sediment sampling was performed at eight onsite and one background location for metals and SVOCs to update the sediment data for the Site. The sedim ent sampling was performed to evaluate the risks to ecological receptors based on current Site cond itions. The ground water and sediment data were evaluated as part of the Supplemental BERA to determine the exposure pathways and risks to ecological receptors.
The BHHRA determined that Site soils do not pose a po tential current or future risk to human health. Ground water is deemed non-potable at the Site due to the presence of a nearby large brackish water body and the presence of the ground water within th e buried landfill material. Estimated risks to human receptors through the sediment pathway via in gestion of fish exceeded acceptable risk levels for Arochlor 1242, copper, and zinc. However, the modeled fish tissue concentrations used in the BHHRA are much higher than the measured fish ti ssue concentrations from Sabine Lake as reported by the TDH. Therefore, the modeled fish tissue c oncentrations are overly conservative, and it is
recommended that the measured concentrations be u sed rather than the modeled concentrations. PCBs were not detected in the fish tissue samp les collected by TDH, and the maximum detected concentrations of copper and zinc in edible fish tissue were approximately one order of magnitude lower than the modeled concentrations. Since estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks (ELCRs) and Hazard Indices (HIs) are directly proportional to expo sure point concentration, use of the measured fish tissue concentrations in the BHHRA would result in acceptable risk levels from fish ingestion exposures. Therefore, no further action in sedimen ts is needed for protection of fish ingestion

exposures 

# .SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC ES-3 OCTOBER 2006 

# The Supplemental BERA identified barium, manganese, and selenium as slightly exceeding primary Ecological Screening Values (ESVs) in Site sedimen ts for benthic organisms, suggesting risks are possible. Only selenium exceeded the secondary ESV suggesting a likely risk. However, based on the ground water and soil data collected as part of the Supplemental RI, the Supplemental BERA concluded that the Site is most likely not the source of selenium in sediments. Furthermore, the weight of evidence analysis conducted for the BERA concludes that there is very low probability of any elevated risk to sediment dwelling organisms fro m constituents of concern (COCs) originating at the SMS. A Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) of remedial alternatives was conducted in
2005 that concluded that monitored natural attenua tion would be the preferred alternative if active
sources of contamination still existed. Since the new 2006 data suggest that concentrations do not pose a risk to benthic communities and since the Site is not considered a source of potential risk to these communities the NEBA was not updated. Moni toring may not be necessary based on the current data and the decision to continue monitroring is left to the discretion of the risk managers for the site (the EPA WAM and other stakeholders).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)

.SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC I OCTOBER 2006 

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................1
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. .................... I Acronym List ................................................................................................................... .................... V
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Site Background................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Site History ...............................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Site Location and Description...................................................................................2 1.1.3 Operational History...................................................................................................2 1.1.4 Summary of Waste Ma nagement Areas....................................................................3
1.2 Site Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................4 1.2.1 Topography ...............................................................................................................5 1.2.2 Site Features..............................................................................................................5 1.2.3 Surface Water............................................................................................................6 1.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology...............................................................................7 1.2.5 Ground Water Use ....................................................................................................8 1.2.6 Ecological Resources ................................................................................................8
1.3 Previous Investigations.....................................................................................................9 1.3.1 Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) at SMS (TNRCC) ..................................................9 1.3.2 Remedial Investigation (Weston)............................................................................11 1.3.3 Other Investigations Adjacent to the SMS..............................................................13 1.3.3.1 Preliminary Asse ssment (T NRCC) ....................................................................13 1.3.3.2 Screening Site In spection (T NRCC) ..................................................................13 1.3.3.3 Palmer Barge Line Site Expanded Site Investigation (Weston) .........................14 

# 1.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination............................................................................15 1.4.1 Soil ..........................................................................................................................1 5 1.4.2 Sediment..................................................................................................................19 1.4.3 Ground Water/Surface Water..................................................................................21 1.4.3.1 October 2001 Ground Water Results..................................................................21 1.4.3.2 June 2002 Investig ation Results .........................................................................22 

# 1.5 Summary of Risk Assessments ......................................................................................22 1.5.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment ..............................................................22 1.5.2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment.....................................................................23
1.6 Overview of Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks..........................................24
1.7 Report Organization.......................................................................................................24
2.0 Data Collectio n Activities..................................................................................................... ....25
2.1 Data Quality Objectives .................................................................................................25
2.2 Monitor Well Installation and Soil Boring Activities ..................................................27 2.2.1 Monitor Well Installation........................................................................................27 2.2.2 Soil Boring Activities..............................................................................................29STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC II OCTOBER 2006 

# 2.3 Water Level Measurement and Ground Water Sampling Activities.........................30
2.4 Sediment Sampling Activities ........................................................................................31
2.5 Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes.............................................................32
2.6 Data Validation Activities ..............................................................................................33
2.7 Risk Assessment Activities .............................................................................................34
3.0 Supplemental RI Results........................................................................................................ ..35
3.1 Geologic Conditions........................................................................................................35
3.2 Water Levels................................................................................................................... .35
3.3 Analytical Results ...........................................................................................................36 3.3.1 Soil Analytical Results............................................................................................36 3.3.1.1 Metals Results in Soils .......................................................................................37 3.3.1.2 SVOC Results in Soils........................................................................................39 

# 3.3.2 Ground Water Analytical Results ...........................................................................42 3.3.2.1 General Ground Water Quality in the Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone....42 3.3.2.2 Metals Results in Ground Water ........................................................................43 3.3.2.3 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Results in Gro und Water ...........................47 

# 3.3.3 Sediment Analytical Results ...................................................................................48 3.3.3.1 Metals Results in Sediment ................................................................................49 3.3.3.2 SVOC Results in Sediment ................................................................................51 

# 4.0 Summary of Risk Assessments ................................................................................................53
4.1 Summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................53 4.1.1 Data Used in the HHRA ..........................................................................................53 4.1.2 Potential Receptors ..................................................................................................54 4.1.3 Summary.................................................................................................................. 55
4.2 Summary of the Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment........................56 4.2.1 Data Used in the Supplemental BERA ...................................................................56 4.2.2 Summary.................................................................................................................. 56
5.0 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................59
5.1 Nature of Soil Impacts....................................................................................................60
5.2 Nature of Ground Water Impacts .................................................................................60
5.3 Nature of Sediment Impacts ..........................................................................................61
5.4 Potential Effects on Human Health...............................................................................61
5.5 Potential Effects to Ecological Receptors......................................................................61
6.0 References..................................................................................................................... .............63

List of Tables Table 2-1 – Data Quality Objectives and Associat ed Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks Table 2-2 – List of Samples Collected During the Su pplemental Remedial Investigation - May – June 2006 Table 2-3 – Monitor Well and Soil Boring Lo cation Coordinates and Completion Details Table 2-4 – Water Level Data – May 2006 Table 3-1 – Detections of Metals in Soil Samples – May 2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC III OCTOBER 2006 

# Table 3-2 – Detections of Semivolatile Or ganic Compounds in Soil Samples – May 2006 Table 3-3 – Detections of Metals in Ground Water Samples – May 2006 Table 3-4 – Detections of Semivolatile Orga nic Compounds in Ground Water Samples – May 2006 Table 3-5 – Detections of Metals in Sediment Samples – June 2006 Table 3-6 – Detections of Semivolatile Organi c Compounds in Sediment Samples – June 2006

List of Figures Figure 1-1 – Site Location Map Figure 1-2 – 2000 Aerial Photograph –Site Features Map Figure 1-3 – 2005 Aerial Photograph – Current Site Features Map Figure 2-1 – Sample Location Map Figure 3-1 – Water Level Elevations in the Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone – May 2006 Figure 3-2 – Metals Detections in Soil Samples – May 2006 Figure 3-3 – SVOC Dectetions in Soil Samples – May 2006 Figure 3-4 – Total Metals Detec tions in Ground Water – May 2006 Figure 3-5 – Dissolved Metals Det ections in Ground Water – May 2006 Figure 3-6 – SVOC Detections in Ground Water – May 2006 Figure 3-7 – Metals Detections in Sediment Samples – June 2006 Figure 3-8 – SVOC Detections in Sediment Samples – June 2006

List of Appendices Appendix A – Data Quality Evaluation Report Appendix B – Soil Boring Logs and Monitor Well Completion Diagrams Appendix C – Laboratory Analytical Data Reports Appendix D – Field Data Sheets Appendix E – Risk Assessment Technical Memoranda Appendix E1 – Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Appendix E2 – Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk AssessmentSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC V OCTOBER 2006 

# Acronym List

AST Aboveground Storage Tank BERA Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment bgs below ground surface BHHRA Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment bss below sediment surface C Celsius CCV continuing calibration verification COC Constituents of Concern COPC Chemicals of Potential Concern CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit CSM Conceptual Site Model CT Central Tendency DO Dissolved Oxygen DPT Direct-Push Technology DQO Data Quality Objective DRO Diesel Range Organic ELCR Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESI Expanded Site Inspection ESV Ecological Screening Value FFS Focused Feasibility Study FS Feasibility Study FSP Field Sampling Plan ft feet ft/ft feet per foot GPS Global Positioning System GRO Gasoline Range Organic HI Hazard Index HRS Hazard Ranking System in inch IDW investigation-derived waste LCS laboratory control sample mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter mS/cm milliseimens per centimeter MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate MSL Mean Sea Level MSSL Media Specific Screening Level mV millivolts N&E Nature and ExtentSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC VI OCTOBER 2006 

# NPL National Priorities List NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential PA Preliminary Assessment PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PBLS Palmer Barge Lines Superfund Site PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCL Protective Concentration Levels PCP Pentachlorophenol PID Photoionization Detector PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal PPE Personal Protective Equipment PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RI Remedial Investigation ROD Record of Decision RPD relative percent difference SIM Single Ion Monitoring SMP Site Management Plan SMS State Marine Superfund Site SSI Screening Site Inspection STL Severn Trent Laboratory SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound TACB Texas Air Control Board TAL Target Analyte List TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCL Target Compound List TCLP Toxicity Characteri stic Leaching Procedure TDH Texas Department of Health TDS Total Dissolved Solids TDWR Texas Department of Water Resources TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission TOC Total Organic Carbon TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program TWC Texas Water Commission USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile Organic Compound μg/kg micrograms per kilogram μg/L micrograms per literSM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 1 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1.0 Introduction

The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is a process by which the nature and extent of risks posed by a hazardous waste site are quantifie d and potential remedial options are evaluated sufficient to support an informed risk management decision regarding remedial action for a site. A RI was completed by the United States Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA) for the State Marine Superfund Site (SMS), as documented in the RI Report dated April 2003 ( Weston, 2003 ). The results from the RI were used by EPA to complete a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA), and a Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) ( CH2M HILL, 2005a, CH2M HILL, 2005b, and CH2M HILL, 2005c ). These reports identified the need for additional data collection to verify the ground water to sediment pathway, with respect to the former wastewater impoundment area at the site , and the need to update the sediment analytical data for evaluating risk to benthic organisms. This Supplemental RI was conducted by EPA to
address these data needs. The BHHRA and BERAhave been updated to incorporate the results of the Supplemental RI.
This introductory section provides a discussion of the site background and history, a summary of the environmental setting, a summary of previous site investigations, a descrip tion of the nature and
extent of contamination based on the results of the 2001 RI, and a description of the contents of this Supplemental RI Report. 

# 1.1 Site Background

This section provides a summary of the site background, including a brief history of the site and an overview of site waste management areas. A map of the site location is provided in Figure 1-1

. 

# 1.1.1 Site History
During a routine aerial surveillance of Jefferson Count y in July 1980, the SMS (also referred to as the ‘Site’) was identified as a potentially hazardous w aste site. The Site was a barge maintenance, cleaning, and salvage facility from 1974 through the early 1980s. Prior to that time, the City of Port Arthur used the Site as a municipal landfill be tween 1963 and 1974. As a result of subsequent investigations by the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR, predecessor agency to the Texas Water Commission [TWC], then the Tex as Natural Resources Conservation Commission [TNRCC], which is currently th e Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TQEC]), the SiteSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 2 OCTOBER 2006 

# became a Listed Hazardous Waste Site. Following TWC scoring efforts in 1987 and later in 1992 using the Hazard Ranking Scoring (HRS) system, the Site was referred to EPA Region 6 because the Site scored a 50.00 under the new HRS, indicating eligibility for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL). The EPA completed two separate HRS efforts, the last of which occurred in 1997. The Site was officially placed on the NPL on August 27, 199 8. In June 1998, EPA requested CH2M HILL to conduct a preliminary RI/FS and prepare a Technical Memorandum. A RI was performed at the site in the autumn of 2001 ( CH2M HILL, 2005a ).


# 1.1.2 Site Location and Description
The Site is located on Old Yacht Club Road, Pleasure Islet, within the City of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. Pleasure Islet is a peninsula located approximately one-half mile southwest of the confluence of the Neches River and Sabine Lake. The approximately 17.2-acre Site consists of tracts
3 and 6 on Old Yacht Club Road. The Sabine-Neches Canal forms the eastern border of the Site. The Site is bordered to the north by the Palmer Barg e Lines Superfund Site (PBLS), to the west by Old Yacht Club Road, and to the south by undeveloped land owned by the State Marine property owner. Figure 1-2 provides current site features displayed on a 1998 aerial photograph.

The Islet is a man-made landmass consisting of dredge spoils gene rated during the construction and
maintenance of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The canal was constructed between 1898 and approximately 1920, near Sabine Lake and the N eches River, between the current Site location and the mainland ( Port Arthur Historical Society, 1997 ). Pleasure Islet did not exist at the time as the area encompassing the Site was actually part of th e northern tip of Pleasure Island. Between 1955 and 1957, a portion of the canal along the western side of Pleasure Islet was abandoned and a new canal cut along the eastern and southern sides of Pleasure Islet. Pleasure Islet was created when a land bridge was constructed across the abandoned porti ons of the canal, between the northern tip of
Pleasure Island and the mainland.


# 1.1.3 Operational History
Prior to 1957, Pleasure Islet was a part of Pleasure Island. Before 1955, few changes were observed in the area of Pleasure Islet. The islet was heavily ve getated and undeveloped. Th e islet received dredge spoils, most likely from the construction and rou tine maintenance of the initial intercoastal canal. Ownership of Pleasure Islet was transferred from the State of Texas to the City of Port Arthur in 1955. A land bridge was constructed across the abandoned portions of the Sabine-Neches Canal, located on the western side of the islet, and development in the area began in 1957 ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 3 OCTOBER 2006 

# The City of Port Arthur began municipal landfill operations on the northern and central portions of the islet in approximately 1963. Th e landfill operation initially consiste d of a burn pit in which wastes were incinerated. Burn operations ceased in 1 969, after which time the landfill was used only for disposal of wastes. Trench methods were used for disposal of wastes in the landfill. In general, 50-foot (ft) wide trenches were excavated to dept hs of approximately 6 to 9 feet. Approximately 6 inches (in) of cover were placed over the wastes every two days, and a minimum of 2 feet of soil was placed over the area once a trench was filled ( Weston, 2003 ).
The City of Port Arthur closed the landfill in December 1974 in accordance with Texas Department of Health (TDH) regulations. This required that the entire landfill be covered with approximately 2 feet of fine-grained fill material. It is believed th at the cover material used was dredge spoils that originated on the islet ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).
Operations at the Site began about 1973. The S ite was initially operated under the names “State Welding and Marine Works” and “Golden Triangle Sh ipyard.” The specific operations at the Site during this time are unknown. However, operations li kely included marine salvage and repairs, and off-loading and bulk storage of petroleum products ( Weston, 2003 ).
The construction of wastewater impoundments in the northwestern portion of the Site was also reported. The impoundments were re ported to have been approximately 2 acres in size, unlined, and constructed with earthen dikes. The impoundments we re used to store oil and wastewater from barge cleaning operations. Inspection reports from the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) and TDWR indicate that wastewater from the barge cleaning ope rations was directed to two aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and then pumped to the wastewat er impoundments. Some oil from the ASTs was diverted to an old ship located on land th at was used as an oil/water separator ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).
A TDWR inspection report from August 1980 indicated that facility modifications were made at the Site to allow process waste oils to be converted in to bunker fuels. The facility modifications included a distillation column, three ASTs, one 20,000-ba rrel tank, and two 10,000- barrel tanks. Additional smaller tanks were later constructed at the Site. A TDWR inspection report associated these storage tanks with the Lauren Refining Company, which w as also owned and operated by the owners of the Site. It is not known when the Lauren Refining Comp any first began operations at the Site, but it is likely to have occurred sometime in 1980 ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).


# 1.1.4 Summary of Waste Management Areas
The wastes generated and/or disposed at the Site appear to have included both raw product (original barge contents) and effluent ge nerated during the cleaning and maintenance of barges. WasteSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 4 OCTOBER 2006 

# generated and stored at the Lauren Refining Comp any includes wastes similar to those generated at the Site. Five different waste areas that were identified are listed below ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ):

• Wastewater treatment facility (excluding the impoundments)

• Wastewater impoundments

• Former Lauren Tank Farm

• Sunken dock barges and offshore sunken barges

• Vehicle storage and maintenance and waste storage/handling areas
The locations and approximate sizes of the waste management areas, shown in Figure 1-2 , were compiled from aerial photographs and Site inspection reports. Additional information regarding these areas is provided below:

• The former wastewater treatment facility incl udes all structures and work areas between the dock barges and the former impoundments, including an area of blasting sand occurring at the shoreline and dock barges.

• The impoundments include the areas previously identified on historical aerial photographs.

• The former tank farm, which is considered a waste management area, includes the boundary of the former tank farm as well as the boundary of a spill that migrated outside of this area.

• The dock barges (sunken and/or floating) and sunken barges are considered waste management areas and include sedimen ts within and around the barges.

• The vehicle storage, maintenance, and waste storage/handling areas include most of the area
between the former tank farm and the former wastewater treatment facility. This area includes wastes associated with the repair or st orage of vehicles or salvage materials, such as marine engines. Also included are at least three storage tanks from the Former Lauren Tank Farm, which were moved to the area between the office building and pump house ( CH2M HILL, 2005a ). 

# 1.2 Site Environmental Setting

This section provides an overview of the Site envi ronmental setting. Described in this section are the Site physical characteristics including topograp hy, Site features, surface water, geology and hydrogeology, ground water use, and ecological resources.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 5 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1.2.1 Topography
Ground elevations range from sea level along the sh oreline to a maximum of 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the north central portions ( Engineer’s Office, City of Port Arthur, 1998 ). The highest relief on Pleasure Islet is associated with th e City of Port Arthur’s former municipal landfill, which underlies most of the central and northern porti ons of the Islet. Onsite, elevations range from approximately 2 to 7 feet above MSL. Drainage on the Islet is toward the adjacent waterways with surface drainage on the Site occurring to the east-southeast.


# 1.2.2 Site Features
The understanding of current conditions and Site features is based on aerial photographs, a Site inspection conducted in August 1998, and the 2003 RI ( Weston, 2003 ). Vehicle access to the Site is limited to a single dirt road originating at the western Site border along Old Yacht Club Road. Within the Site, dirt roads and trails connect various ar eas of current or historical operations. Along the shoreline are two sunken barge docks, orientated para llel to and forming part of the shoreline. These two structures are the primary location where barg es were moored during cleaning or maintenance. Two additional sunken barges lie perpendicular to the shoreline, as well as a third barge that is oriented parallel to the shoreline ( CH2M HILL, 2005a ). These features are clearly shown on 1998 aerial photographs, as well as older photographs. Dredging of the canal in this area occurs approximately every two years ( Saez, 1998 ).
Old marine equipment, including cranes and ma rine salvage debris, are present on the dock barges and inland areas. Several structures still exist, incl uding a maintenance shed, a former office building, former wastewater treatment facility structures (boiler house, compressor building, and a former pump house), and at least one additional structure of unknown use. Most of these structures are partially collapsed and appear abandoned except for the maintenance shed, which may still be in use. Several ASTs and 55-gallon drums sit at the Site. Th e status of the tanks and their contents was not investigated during the preliminary inspection ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ), although several drums appeared to be partially full. Numerous vehicles, including old cranes, pickup trucks, and several tractors and tractor-trailers, are parked at the Site. None of the vehicles looked operational and several appear to be in various states of salvage or repair. The soil around many of the vehicles is oil stained.
The Site is partially vegetated w ith native shrubbery and grasses. Much of the Site is overgrown and few structures are recognizable relative to the original operations observed on historical aerial photographs. Less than 10 feet of shoreline is expo sed at most locations. However, aerial photographs
indicate a broader shoreline between the two doc k barges, which were not visited during theSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 6 OCTOBER 2006 

# preliminary inspection. The area is tidally influenced (1 to 2 feet) and the amount of shoreline exposed is likely to vary between tides. During the preliminary inspection, passing ships were observed to generate significant wave action at the shoreline. Based on the wave action and proximity of the canal, it is likely that the shoreline is erodi ng. Several trees exist and wetland vegetation occurs near or along some areas of the shoreline. Sea gulls were observed roos ting on the offshore sunken barges ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).
Figure 1-2 shows the general Site conditions as of 2000 (the year the aerial photograph used as the basemap was taken). Changes to the general Site conditions have occurred since that time. Figure 1-3 shows the general site conditions base on an aerial photograph taken in the autumn of 2005 (after Hurricane Rita made landfall in the area of the Site). Based on a comparison of the two photographs, many of the sunken barges shown in th e 2000 photograph were much less visible in the 2005 photograph. The sunken barges appear to ha ve deteriorated during the intervening years. Several tugboats are shown stranded offshore of the nor thern portion of the Site in 2005 that were not present in 2000. Also, many of the Site structures have further collapsed or lost their roofs since 2000. The 2005 aerial photograph also shows that ad ditional erosion has occurred along the shoreline in the southern portion of the Site . Hurricane Rita made landfall near and passed through the area of the Site in September 2005. It is possible that some or all of the changes in Site conditions are related
to Huricane Rita.


# 1.2.3 Surface Water

The surface water bodies near the Site include Sabi ne Lake, the Sabine and Neches Rivers, and the Sabine-Neches Canal. The Site is located along th e shore of Sabine Lake. These surface water bodies are used for a variety of purposes ( Weston, 2003 ).

Sabine Lake is used for both co mmercial and recreational fishing. The lake also serves as a tourist and recreational water body for activities such as swimming and boating ( Weston, 2003 ). Sabine
Lake is an estuarine environment that supports vegetation, fish, cr ustacean, amphibian, reptile, and marine mammal species. In addition, the lake is u sed by migratory and fish eating species of birds.
The lake is home to several threatened and endangered species including the green turtle ( Chemlondia mydas ), loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ), ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kmpii ), the gulf salt marsh snake ( Nerodia clarkia ), and the Texas diamondback terrapin ( Malachlemys terrapin ) ( Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2001 , and EPA, 2000 ).

The Sabine-Neches Canal connects the Gulf of Mexico to the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. The canal has been improved and dredged over the years with the expansion of oil operationsSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 7 OCTOBER 2006 

# and chemical industries in the area. The canal is a busy water body with the shipping of assorted cargo and petroleum or petr oleum-related products ( Weston, 2003 ).


# 1.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The geology and hydrogeology of the Site are unusua l, because the Site is situated on a man-made landmass within a waterway of considerable flow vo lume. This landmass consis ts of dredge spoils generated during constructi on and maintenance of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The City of Port Arthur used the Site as a municipal landfill from approxima tely 1963 until 1974. Trench and fill methods were employed for disposal of the municipal wast e. The entire Site was subsequently capped with what is believed to be dredge spoils. Municipal landfill debris is present in the shallow subsurface across the majority of the Site ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).
During the RI conducted by Weston in 2001, the pr esence of landfill debris prohibited recovery of subsurface soil samples in most instances; thus, detailed information on the subsurface soil conditions across the majority of the Site could not be obtai ned. The landfill material is usually encountered approximately 2 feet below the surface and typical ly ranges in thickness from 3 to 10 feet. Based on observations during monitor well installation activities, the soils underlying the landfill debris consist of dredge spoils underlain by alluvial deposits to the depths investigated (40 to 55 feet below ground surface [bgs]). These materials consisted primarily of saturated, very soft, gray silty clay. At one location, MW061, saturated, gray, silty sand was encountered at a depth of approximately 35 feet bgs ( Weston, 2003 ).

Monitor wells were installed at three locations dur ing the RI field activities. The well locations were selected to obtain samples downgradient of the mo st significant source areas. In addition, based on observations during monitor well installation, ground water was typically encountered at depths of approximately 2 to 4 feet bgs. Below this depth, soils remained saturated throughout the depths investigated (40 to 55 feet bgs) without the presen ce of a distinct confining layer. Due to the extensive saturated thickness, two nested wells we re installed at each of the three monitor well locations (shown on Figure 1-2 ), one to screen the upper 20 feet and one to screen the next 20 feet below. Because no previous ground water sampling ha d been conducted, the wells were used as a screening assessment of the ground water conditions ( Weston 2003 ).
Although an obvious aquitard was not observed durin g the well installations, the water quality data indicate the presence of two separate zones. Salinity measurements were consistently higher in the deeper wells, which could indicate that a shallo w perched zone is present and has a fresh water impact from precipitation. In addition, the piezo metric surface of the shallow well measurementsSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 8 OCTOBER 2006 

# appears to follow the land surface topography. This is commonly seen in shallow perched aquifers. Based on the depth-to-water measured in the sh allow screened wells, the base of the landfill may serve as the lower aquitard of a perched shallow ground water zone. For both the deep- and shallowscreened wells, ground water appears to flow to th e southeast with a hydraulic gradient of 1.18 x 10 -3 

# feet per foot (ft/ft) and 2.13 x 10 -2 

# ft/ft, respectively ( Weston, 2003 ).


# 1.2.5 Ground Water Use
The main source of deep ground water in the area of the Site is the Gulf Coast Aquifer. The Gulf Coast Aquifer consists of altern ating beds of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that are hydraulically connected and form a large, leaky, artesian aqui fer system. Ground water is used for industrial and irrigation purposes approximately 1.5 miles from the Site ( TNRCC, 1997 ). There is one domestic well located approximately 1 mile from the site. Th is well is hydraulically upgradient from the Site. In addition, 33 public, industrial, unknown use, test, and domestic wells were identified within a 4-mile radius of the Site. Based on the ground wa ter flow direction documented during the RI, these wells appear to be located upgradient or cross-gradient from the Site ( Weston, 2003 ).

Ground water at the Site is not known to be used for drinking purposes. There is no current or anticipated future use of ground water as a sour ce of potable water at the Site. Because of the underlying landfill, which precludes use of shallow ground water and the proximity to brackish surface water, ground water is believed non-potable ( Weston, 2003 ).


# 1.2.6 Ecological Resources

Pleasure Islet is situated in the northwest corner of Sabine Lake, a tidally-influenced estuary. Part of the designated use of this lake is high quality aquatic habitat and shellfish wa ters. The lake, which is an active habitat for a variety of water fowl and aquatic wildlife, contains a number of environmentally sensitive wetlands and bird rookeri es, most of which have been designated as a National Wildlife Refuge. Critical habitats for various threatened or endangered species occur within a 15-mile radius of the Site. The high quality aq uatic habitat provided by Sabine Lake supports a variety of wetland plants. Detailed information re garding wetlands, protected species, and critical
habitat locations were not available in the reviewed site literature.
Both commercial and noncommercial fishing occur in the area. There are three surface water intakes used only for industrial purposes within 15 miles dow nstream of the site. There are no drinking water intakes downstream of the site ( TNRCC, 1997 ).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 9 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1.3 Previous Investigations

Pleasure Islet provided a convenient barge cleani ng area for vessels carrying supplies and petroleum products through Sabine Lake. The SMS and PBLS both provided these types of services. In the course of the cleaning operations conducted at these two sites, hazardous materials spilled or were disposed inappropriately, potentially affecti ng human health and the environment. Several investigations have been conducted at the two sites in order to identify and characterize the sources
and contaminants at both sites. This section summa rizes the significant investigations at both the
PBLS and SMS sites.


# 1.3.1 Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) at SMS (TNRCC)
In 1995, TNRCC initiated an Expanded Site Inspec tion (ESI) at SMS. The objective of the TNRCC ESI was to collect sufficient data to develop an u nderstanding of the Site contaminants and to identify the potential migration pathways, primary contaminant sources, exposure pathways, and presence of potential human health and ecological receptors. Th e following reports were completed from the data obtained from the field work during the ESI:

• 1996 ESI (TNRCC).

• 1997 HRS Documentation Report (TNRCC).

• 1999 Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL).
The work performed, summary of results, and c onclusions are provided in the 1996 ESI Report ( TNRCC, 1996) . The data obtained from the ESI enabled the TNRCC to assign a hazardous ranking score to the Site as reported in the 1997 HRS Documentation Report.
The analytical results from the ESI were also summarized by CH2M HILL in the 1999 Technical Memorandum and were used to develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) as part of a screening level RI/FS. As a result of the CSM, it was found that waste materials associat ed with barge cleaning operations were the primary source of contaminati on. In addition, complete exposure pathways to human and ecological receptors were found to exist ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ).
The 1995 sampling event included the collection of 30 soil samples, 34 sediment samples, and 9 surface water samples by TNRCC. In addition, 8 background samples were collected from locations around Sabine Lake near the Site. The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pe sticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 10 OCTOBER 2006 

# metals, and cyanide ( CH2M HILL, 1999 ). The following bullets summarize the investigation results
obtained from the CH2M HILL 1999 Technical Memorandum:
Soil Samples

• VOCs were detected infrequently and at relatively low levels in several soil samples. None of the detected VOCs exceeded Preliminary Remedi ation Goals (PRGs). Two of the detected VOCs—acetone and methylene chloride—were potential laboratory contaminants and may
not be Site related.

• SVOCs including human carcinogens be nzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)fluoranthene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, a nd benzo(k)fluoranthene were encountered in exceedences of PRGs in at least two samples from each waste area. These contaminants are part of a group of compounds referred to as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

• Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected sporadically across the Site. At least one sample from each waste management area contained pesticides and/or PCBs that exceeded applicable PRGs.

• Metals were identified in every soil sample collected. Elevated levels of aluminum, chromium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc were encountered onsite and offsite. The highest levels of metals were generally located near or within the blasting sands area.
Sediment Samples

• VOCs were detected infrequently and at relati vely low levels in several sediment samples. None of the VOCs detected were at concentrations exceeding their respective PRGs. Acetone and methylene chloride were potential laboratory contaminants and may not have been siterelated.

• SVOCs, consisting primarily of PAHs, were found in five of seven sediment samples analyzed for SVOCs. Each of the five sampl es was collected adjacent to areas in which petroleum products were manage d or disposed. Levels of benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, and benzo (k ) fluoranthene were consistently elevated among the PAHs detected.

• Pesticides and PCBs were detected infrequently in the sediment samples collected in Lake Sabine. Aroclor-1242 was detected in one samp le, and lindane was detected in two sediment samples.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 11 OCTOBER 2006 

# • Metals including arsenic, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and zinc were identified in every sediment sample. The highest concentrations of meta ls were reported to occur along the shoreline and near the sunken barges.
Surface Water Samples

• Nine surface water samples were collected fro m Sabine Lake. No VOCs or pesticides/PCBs
were detected. SVOCs that were detected included benzo (g,h,i) perylene and bis (2- ethylhexyl) phthalate. The concentrations for both compounds were below their respective
PRGs.

• Metals that were detected above their respec tive PRGs in the surface water samples included antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium.
No ground water samples were collected by TNRCC during this investigation.
The ESI confirmed the presence of contaminated so il in source areas. The presence of SVOCs and metals in sediment and surface water samples suggested that contaminants had migrated from source

areas.


# 1.3.2 Remedial Investigation (Weston)
An RI was conducted by Weston in 2001, consisti ng of two sampling events in the fall of 2001, where sediment samples from offsite locations in Sabine Lake and soil and ground water samples
from onsite locations on the SMS were collected.
As part of the field activities, the following sampling efforts were conducted:

• Completion of 6 deep borings (to depths ranging from 25 ft to 60 ft bgs).

• Installation of 6 monitor wells.

• Completion of 5 shallow borings (to depths ranging from 4 ft to 9 ft bgs).

• Collection of surface soil samples at 87 locations (to depths ranging from 0 to 6 in. bgs).

• Collection of intertidal samples at 9 locations (to depths ranging from 0 to 6 in. bgs).

• Collection of sediment samples from 46 locations (to depths ranging from 0 to 6 ft below sediment surface [bss]).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 12 OCTOBER 2006 

# The analytical results in the 2001 RI Report were reviewed and compared to the Tier 1
Commercial/Industrial Protective Concentration Le vels (PCLs) established under the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP), and where appropriate, the results were also compared to background numbers for site contaminants. The following pa ragraphs summarize the findings of the 2001 RI. The 2001 RI Report did not compare the analytical results to numerical concentration values to assess ecological risks. The 2001 RI analytical results were evaluated in terms of ecological risks posed by the site contaminants in the 2005 BERA ( CH2M HILL, 2005c ), which is further discussed in
Section 1.5.2

. The most frequently detected contaminants for all sediment samples collected were metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. For intertidal sedimen ts, six metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium) and one SVOC (pentachloro phenol) exceeded Tier 1 PCLs. Constituents that exceeded Tier 1 PCLs for nearshore sediments included six metals (arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and mercury) and one SVOC (3,3 -dichlorobenzidine). Only arsenic, lead, and mercury exceeded Tier 1 PCLs for offshore sediments. The most frequently detected contaminants for all soils at the Site were metals including antim ony, arsenic, barium, lead, mercury, and silver. These metals consistently exceeded the PC L for soil to protect ground water ( Gw 

# Soil PCL).

Based on the distribution of these constituents, Weston concluded that their occurrence is most likely a result of the former incineration and landfill operations ( Weston, 2003 ). In general, the metals are widely distributed across the site and not limited to the SMS source areas. Although the distribution is widespread, several distinct patterns of the me tals are apparent and include the following:

• A “hot spot” of arsenic, barium, and lead is lo cated on the north central boundary of the site.

• Elevated antimony concentrations can be seen primarily in the north central portion of the
site.

• A hot spot of mercury and silver concentrations appears to be located near the northern edge
of the Former Lauren Tank Farm area.
Isolated detections of the SVOCs (including benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, and pentachlorophenol) were reported at relatively low concentrations for onsite soils. Because the SVOC exceedences were only detected at isolated locations, impact from operations on the Site appeared to be minimal ( Weston, 2003 ).
Nine constituents, including eight metals (antim ony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, lead, manganese, silver, and thallium) and one SVOC (pentachlorophe nol), exceeded the Tier 1 PCLs for ground waterSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 13 OCTOBER 2006 

# ingestion ( GW 

# GW Ing 

# PCL). Based on a preliminary comparison of ground water analytical results to Class 3 ground water criteria, no constituents exceed ed Class 3 ground water PCLs. However, due to
the considerable saturated thickness observed in the subsurface soils, it is unlikely that determination of sustainable yield would result in a Class 3 ground water resource classification. As discussed previously, the site is situated on a man-made landmass within a very large waterway. The near surface strata consist of landfill debris and dredge spoils underlain by recent alluvial deposits. These
materials are unconsolidated and saturated. Based on drilling observations and the water quality data collected at the site, it appears that the deeper ground water encountered at the site is directly influenced by the adjacent brackis h water body, and the shallow ground water zone is perched within
the landfill material. These data and the fact that a former landfill overlies the site make it unrealistic to assume any beneficial use of the shallow ground water ( Weston, 2003 ).


# 1.3.3 Other Investigations Adjacent to the SMS
A Preliminary Assessment (PA), a Screening Site Inspection (SSI), and an ESI were conducted immediately adjacent to the Site at the PBLS. The PBLS is located on Pleasure Islet immediately north of the SMS. These investigations did not in volve collecting soil, sediment, or ground water directly from the SMS; however, some sedimen t data obtained from the PBLS at nearshore and
offshore locations were used in the human health and ecological screening risk assessment. Details of the PBLS investigations are summarized below.



# 1.3.3.1 Preliminary Assessment (TNRCC) The PA at PBLS was conducted by TNRCC in November 1997. The objective during the PA was to
assess whether there was contamination at PBLS that posed an immediate threat to human health and the environment. Source areas identified as potentia lly hazardous included the vacuum tank sump, the boiler house, the flare, the 12-tank battery a nd roll-off boxes, and the wastewater tanks ( TNRCC,
1998 ). These areas of concern were further evaluated in the 1998 SSI.



# 1.3.3.2 Screening Site Inspection (TNRCC) In March 1998, TNRCC conducted the SSI at PBLS. The investigation was conducted in order to
characterize the nature and extent of contamina tion and to determine whether the site would be eligible for placement on the NPL. Field activities included the collection of 13 soil samples at the various sources and 12 sediment samples from Sabine Lake ( TNRCC, 1998 ).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 14 OCTOBER 2006 

# Soil samples were collected at the vacuum tank sumps, the boiler house, the flare, the 12-tank battery and roll-off box, and the wastewater tanks. The laboratory results showed numerous SVOCs, pesticides, and metals present at concentrations exceeding the contract required quantitation limits (CRQLs) at all the source areas. Two pesticides (aro clor-1254 and aroclor-1260) were detected in exceedence of their CRQLs at the 12-tank battery and roll-off box area ( TNRCC, 1998 ).
Sediment Samples
Nine sediment samples were collected offsite in Sabine Lake to assess whether contamination had migrated from onsite source areas. Three bac kground samples were collected to establish a comparison value for the release samples. The analyti cal results showed concentrations of cyanide, metals, and SVOCs. Barium, copper, manganese, and mercury were detected at concentrations three times the background values and were attributed to source areas at PBLS. Therefore, they were identified as released substances ( TNRCC, 1998 ).

The SSI determined that contaminated soil existe d at offsite source areas at PBLS. Barium, copper, manganese, and mercury were detected at concen trations three times background levels in the sediment samples and could be attributable back to source areas; therefore, it was determined that
hazardous substances had been released from the PBLS.



# 1.3.3.3 Palmer Barge Line Site Expanded Site Investigation (Weston) In October 1999, Weston conducted an ESI at the PBLS. The purpose of the ESI was to identify immediate or potential threats that hazardous substances, attributable to the site, posed to human health and the environment and to identify the receptors, or targets, potentially exposed to the hazardous substances. The field activities during th e ESI focused on determining the presence and nature of onsite contaminated soil and ground wate r and offsite contaminates in Sabine Lake. The
information obtained in the ESI was used to evalua te whether the site should have been placed on the NPL or given a status of “No Fu rther Remedial Action Planned” ( Weston, 2000 ).
Soil Samples
The soil boring locations included the wastewater ASTs, the boiler house ASTs, the open top slop tanks, horizontal ASTs, 12 other ASTs, the flare, and background locations. Samples were collected from 0 to 2 feet and from 2 to 4 feet in depth. The laboratory results showed numerous VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals present at concentrations exceeding the CRQLs at all the source areas ( Weston, 2000 ).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 15 OCTOBER 2006 

# Ground Water Samples
Ground water samples were collected downgradient of the wastewater AST (Tank 102) and the 12 ASTs. The ground water samples were generally co llected at 8 to 20 feet bgs. The analytical results showed one VOC (tert-butyl methyl et her), no SVOCs, one pesticide (4,4’-DDD), and
13 metals detected at three times the background concentrations ( Weston, 2000 ).
Sediment Samples
Weston collected 22 sediment samples, including 5 background samples, to document possible impact to Sabine Lake sediments adjacent to the PBLS. The samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, metals, and cyanide. Th e results of the ESI documented that SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and numerous metals were present at levels exceeding background concentrations. The data were used to support the conclusion that a release to the surface water pathway had occurred ( Weston, 2000 ).
The ESI performed at the PBLS confirmed the pr esence of contaminated soil and contaminated ground water at several source areas. The presence of SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals in the sediment samples collected in Sabine Lake also confirmed that contaminants migrated from source areas to Sabine Lake, potentially aff ecting human and ecological receptors. 

# 1.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The nature and extent (N&E) of contamination at the Site has been documented through sampling onsite and offsite of various environmental media during the RI ( Weston, 2003 ) and previous field efforts. This section provides a summary of the N&E of contamination provided in the RI Report. As previously stated in Section 1.3.2 , the 2001 RI Report did not compare the analytical results to numerical concentration values to assess ecological risks. The 2001 RI analytical results were evaluated in terms of ecological risks posed by the site contaminants in the 2005 BERA ( CH2M HILL, 2005c ), which is further discussed in Section 1.5.2

. 

# 1.4.1 Soil
Municipal landfill debris is present in the shallo w subsurface across a large portion of the Site. The landfill material, which is usually encountered a pproximately 2 feet below the surface, typically ranges in thickness from 3 to 10 feet. The presence of this material prohibited recovery of subsurface soil samples in most instances; therefore, detailed information on the subsurface soil conditions was unavailable. Based on observations during monitoring well installation activities, the subsurface soils consist of dredge spoils to the depths investigated (40 to 55 feet bgs). These materials consistedSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 16 OCTOBER 2006 

# primarily of saturated, very soft, gray, silty clay . At one location, MW061, saturated, gray, silty sand was encountered at a depth of approximately 35 feet bgs.
The soil analytical results were compared to Commercial/Industrial PCLs for the 30-acre source area established in the TRRP. The comparisons were made to both the PCLs for soil considered protective of human health ( Tot 

# Soil Comb) 

# and the GW 

# Soil PCLs and/or the Texas-Specific Background Concentrations (for arsenic, barium, and lead).
Background soil samples were collected from three offsite locations. The background samples were analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and Target Compound List (TCL) SVOCs. Background sample analyses can be used to demons trate that Site contaminants are naturally occurring or are present as a result of anthropoge nic activities unrelated to Site operations. The background soil samples were compared to two be nchmarks: the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial

GW 

# Soil PCLs from a 30-acre source area and the lis ted Texas-Specific Background Concentrations.
Based on this comparison, arsenic, barium, lead, and mercury were reported at concentrations exceeding TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs. After comparing the average background concentrations to the listed Texas-Sp ecific Background Concentrations, it was apparent that Site background conditions are similar to th e Texas-Specific Concentrations for these metals.

For the TCL SVOCs, no constituents were detect ed in the background samples above laboratory reporting limits with the exception of samples that were flagged or qualified based on unique reporting circumstances.
Based on the evaluation of the background sample results, the Tier 1 PCLs were deemed appropriate for use as assessment levels at the Site, rather than the background results. Because the background sample concentrations are so similar to the Tex as-Specific Background Concentrations, the published Texas-Specific Background Concentrations for arsenic , barium, and lead were selected for use as the
critical PCLs for these constituents.
Nine surface soil samples, including one field duplicat e, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the former Wastewater Impoundments Area. Based on the comparisons to TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial PCLs for soils, the following contaminants with the associated maximum reported concentrations were detected at levels exceeding GW 

# Soil PCLs: antimony (20.5 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]), arsenic (7.4 mg/kg), barium (534 mg/kg), lead (210 mg/kg), and mercury (0.16 mg/kg). No TCL SVOCs were detected at levels exceeding PCLs.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 17 OCTOBER 2006 

# Eight surface soil samples, including one field duplicat e, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Arsenic, lead, mercury, and silver were
found to exceed TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs with maximum reported concentrations of 10.4 mg/kg, 150 mg/kg, 0.98 mg /kg, and 1.4 mg/kg, respectively. No TCL SVOCs were detected at any sample location in the Wast ewater Treatment Facility at levels exceeding PCLs.
Four surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the Tar Burn Area. Lead, mercury, and silver were c onsistently found to exceed the TRRP Tier 1
Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs with maximum reported concentrations of 967 mg/kg, 0.31 mg/kg, and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. No TCL SVOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding
risk based levels.
Six surface soil samples, including two field duplicat es, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the AST area. Arsenic, lead, me rcury, and silver were found to exceed TRRP
Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs with maximum concentrations of 7.9 mg/kg, 558 mg/kg, 0.13 mg/kg, and 0.96 mg/kg, respectively. The TC L SVOC analysis detected two constituents at
concentrations above Tier 1 PCLs. These constituen ts and maximum reported concentrations included benzo (a) pyrene, (2.7 mg/kg), which exceeded both the TOT 

# Soil Comb 

# and GW 

# Soil PCLs, and pentachlorophenol (0.28 mg /kg), which exceeded the GW 

# Soil PCL.
Five surface soil samples, including one field dup licate, were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the Maintenance Shed Area. Antimony, arsenic, lead, mercury, and thallium were detected at concentrations exceeding TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs. The maximum concentrations reported for these meta ls were 5.8 mg/kg, 19 mg/kg, 290 mg/kg, 0.11 mg/kg, and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively. No TCL S VOCs were detected at any sample location in the Maintenance Shed Area at levels exceeding PCLs.
Six surface soil samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the Former Lauren Tank Farm Area. Arsenic and lead were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding TRRP Tier
1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs in the Former Lauren Tank Farm Area. The highest reported
concentrations for arsenic and lead were 26. 4 mg/kg and 1030 mg/kg, respectively. Antimony, cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, a nd thallium were also detected less frequently at concentrations exceeding the GW 

# Soil PCLs. For TCL SVOCs, benzo (a) pyrene (5.1 mg/kg) was the only constituent to exceed Tier 1 PCLs.
A majority of the sample locations at the Site ca me from areas that did not fall within the defined source areas. These sample locations were defi ned as non-source sample locations. A total of 66STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 18 OCTOBER 2006 

# surface soil samples, including 6 field duplicates, were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the non-source area. The same trend was apparent in the non-source area as in the source areas with regard to the pattern of c ontaminants detected in the soils.
Arsenic and lead were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1
Commercial / Industrial GW 

# PCLs for soils with maximum reporte d concentrations of 48.7 mg/kg and 2040 mg/kg, respectively. Seven additional TAL meta ls were detected at concentrations exceeding

GW 

# Soil PCLs but were detected much less frequently than arsenic and lead. These metals with the associated maximum reported concentrations included antimony (26.3 mg/kg), barium (744 mg/kg), beryllium (1.2 mg/kg), cadmium (16.4 mg/kg), c opper (5480 mg/kg), mercury (0.54 mg/kg), silver (8.3 mg/kg), and thallium (2.9 mg/kg).
For TCL SVOCs, three PAH compounds were detected at two locations that exceeded TOT 

# Soil Comb 

# and/or GW 

# Soil PCLs. These PAHs and associated concentrations included benzo (a) anthracene (24 mg/kg), benzo (b) fluoranthene (25 mg/kg) and benzo (a) pyrene (19 mg/kg). Carbazole and PCP were also detected at 7.5 mg/kg and 0.060 mg/kg, respectively, at one location, which exceeds the

GW 

# Soil PCL.
The subsurface investigation during the 2001 RI did not proceed as originally intended due to a large portion of the Site having excessive landfill material and debris that prohi bited subsurface sample recovery with conventional direct-push sampling e quipment. According to the 2001 RI/FS Technical Work Plan, the entire sampling grid (87 stations ) would be sampled for subsurface soils; however, due to Site conditions, only 15 locations were attempted. Of the 15 attempted, only 5 were successful in obtaining subsurface samples. Three additional lo cations were sampled using hollow-stem augers in which subsurface recovery was obtained. Thus, a total of 8 sample locations out of 18 attempted
were successful.
A total of 11 subsurface soil samples, including one field duplicate, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from locations collected across the Site. As with surface soil samples, arsenic and lead were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1
Commercial / Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs with maximum reported c oncentrations of 12.6 mg/kg and 558 mg/kg, respectively. Seven additional TAL me tals (antimony, beryllium, mercury, thallium, barium, cadmium, and silver) were dete cted at concentrations exceeding the GW 

# Soil PCL values but were detected less frequently than arsenic and l ead. For TCL SVOCs, only one constituent from the
11 subsurface locations exceeded Tier 1 PCLs. PCP w as detected at a concentration of 0.060 mg/kg. The remaining constituents were either not detected or detected at concentrations below Tier 1 PCLs.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 19 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1.4.2 Sediment
Sediments in the intertidal area typically consiste d of brown sand with abunda nt shell fragments and some wood and roots. Due to the adjacent landfill, in tertidal sediments also contained a large amount of debris such as glass and plastic fragments.
Offshore and nearshore sediments varied in compos ition, depending on their proximity to the sunken barges along the shoreline. Generally, the area around and between the sunken barges consisted predominantly of a fine-grained silty sand with most samples containing occasional shell fragments. The sediments outside the sunken barges predominantly consisted of a dark silty to sandy clay with frequent shell fragments. It was also noted that the sediments adjacent to the PBLS were typically more fine-grained and darker in color.
The analytical results are discussed below. It s hould be noted that at some stations TCL metal constituents were reported by both Severn Trent Laboratory (STL) and Colombia Analytical. Unless otherwise stated, the metals concentrations discussed in the text were reported by STL. The sediment analytical results have been co mpared to Commercial/Industrial PC Ls for the 30-acre source area established in the TRRP. The tables present comparisons to both the soil PCL for combined ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalati on of volatiles and particulates Tot 

# Soil Comb 

# , and to the PCL for soil to protect ground water GW 

# Soil PCLs. These PCLs are appropriate for use as assessment levels for sediments at the SMS site based on the following criteria:

• Surface water adjoining the Site is tidally influenced, and intertidal sediments are exposed at periods of low tide. Therefore, ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatiles and particulates are potential exposure routes for these media.

• Nearshore and offshore sediments are not exposed during periods of low tide; however, these sediments are continually in contact with su rface water. Use classification of Sabine Lake includes recreation, and ingestion is a potential exposure route. Therefore, the PCL for soil to protect ground water could be applied as a c onservative measure for nearshore and offshore sediments as well as for intertidal sediments, which are in contact with surface water during periods of high tide.
Further evaluation of the sediment analytical results are provided in the screening-level risk assessments in the RI appendices ( Weston, 2003 ).
Background sediment samples were collected from fi ve offsite locations adjacent to Sydnes Island, which is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the State Marine site. The background sedimentSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 20 OCTOBER 2006 

# samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. To evaluate whether it was beneficial to use the background results as assessment levels, the sa mples were compared to two benchmarks: the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / Industrial ground wate r protection PCLs for soils from a 30-acre source area and the listed Texas-Specific Background Concentrations.
Based on this comparison, mercury had detections slightly exceeding TRRP screening levels but significantly less than the listed Texas-Speci fic Background Concentrations. The average concentration was 0.004 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg). Although the average background concentration is above Tier 1 PCLs, it is si gnificantly less than the Listed Texas-Specific
Concentrations for metals and is reflective of values of background metal concentrations for the area. The remaining TAL metals were detected but did not exceed Tier 1 PCLs.

For the TCL SVOCs, no constituents were detect ed in the background samples above laboratory reporting limits with the exception of samples that were flagged or qualified based on unique reporting circumstances.
Based on this evaluation of the background sample re sults, the Tier 1 PCLs are appropriate for use as assessment levels, rather than the background results. Published Texas-Specific Background Concentrations for lead and mercury are appropria te for use as the critical PCL for these constituents.
Nine intertidal sediment samples were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. Lead and mercury were consistently detected at concen trations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial /
Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs for soils with maximum reported concentrations of 942 and 0.18 mg/kg, respectively. It should be noted that the lead concentrate was reported by Colombia Analytical. Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and selenium were also detected at concentrations above Tier 1 PCLs; however, these metals were detected less frequent ly. For the TCL SVOCs, Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was detected at a concentration exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs.
PCP was detected at two intertidal locations at concentrations of 0.82 mg/kg and 0.160 mg/kg.
Fifty-eight sediment samples, including eight field duplicates, were collected and analyzed for TAL
metals and TCL SVOCs from the nearshore locations . Arsenic, lead, and mercury were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs for soils with maximum reported concentra tions of 14.3, 29.9, and 0.075 mg/kg, respectively. Barium, beryllium, and cadmium were additional constitu ents that were infrequently detected at
concentrations above Tier 1 PCLs. For TCL SVOC s, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine was the only constituent
to exceed risk-based levels. This constituent was reported at a concentration of 0.075 mg/kg at location PB010-51, which exceeds the GW 

# Soil PCL.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 21 OCTOBER 2006 

# A total of 12 sediment samples including 1 field dupl icate was collected and an alyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the offshore locations. Arsenic, lead, and mercury were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# Soil PCLs for soils with maximum reported concentrations of 8.9, 15.1, a nd 0.072 mg/kg, respectively. For the TCL SVOCs, no constituents exceeded the comparison values.


# 1.4.3 Ground Water/Surface Water
The shallow ground water appears to be a mix of fresh and brackish water from the lake, making it unsuitable for human consumption. In addition, th e ground water exists at depths where the landfill material exists. Therefore, ground water may be affected by constituents of concern from landfill wastes and not suitable for household drinking water use. Based on th e high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations, the proximity of the Site to brackish surface water, and the presence of the underlying landfill, there is no current or anticipated future use of ground water as a source of potable water at the Site. Based on the available Site data, the ground water resource classification is Class 2.
Ground water results were compared to both the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial PCL for ground water ingestion ( Gw 

# Gw Ing 

# ) and the EPA Region 6 Tap Water Media Specific Screening Levels (MSSLs). Further evaluation is provided in the risk assessments in the RI appendices ( Weston,
2003 ). The results from the following subsections are presented in the 2003 RI ( Weston 2003 ).



# 1.4.3.1 October 2001 Ground Water Results

Six monitoring wells were installed at the Site and were sampled for meta ls, VOCs, and SVOCs. Of the six samples submitted for TAL metals analys is, every constituent exceeded TRRP Tier 1
Commercial / Industrial Gw 

# Gw Ing 

# PCLs for each sample location. In addition, arsenic, barium, lead, and manganese exceeded EPA Region 6 MSSLs.
For VOCs and SVOCs, only PCP exceeded Tier 1 PC Ls. The contaminant was detected in monitor
well MW061B with a concentration of 0.004 micr ograms per liter (μg/L). The remaining VOC and
SVOC constituents were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below risk-based levels. Several organic constituents exceeded EPA Region 6 MSSLs for tap water, including the following: pentachlorophenol, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroetha ne, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and benzene. These constituents were reported at relatively low concentrations.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 22 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1.4.3.2 June 2002 Investigation Results

Weston conducted an additional investigation in June 2002. The investigation included collecting ground water samples from the six existing mon itoring wells and collecting surface water from Sabine Lake. The primary objective for sampling the existing monitoring wells was to provide additional ground water data for the SMS site and to compare these data to the October 2001 ground
water data.
The primary objective for sampling the surface wate r adjacent to Site was to evaluate whether constituents were migrating through the ground water to Sabine Lake. The focus for sampling surface water was to detect TAL metals, particularly those that were detected in onsite ground water in excess of ecological-based surface water screening benchmarks.
Surface water samples were analyzed for both total an d dissolved metals. The analytical results were compared to the following two regulatory values: TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / Industrial GW 

# GW Ing 

# and EPA Region 6 Tap Water MSSLs. Based on the results , lead (0.09 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) was the only constituent that exceeded regulatory values for total metals. No samples exceeded regulatory
values for dissolved metals.
Ground water samples were analyzed for total and dissolved metals. The analytical results were compared to the following regulatory values: TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GW 

# GW Ing 

# and EPA Region 6 Tap Water MSSLs. Based on the results, arse nic, and manganese were consistently detected above regulatory values. 

# 1.5 Summary of Risk Assessments

The following sections summarize the results of the BHHRA and BERA completed in 2005. 

# 1.5.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
The 2005 BHHRA evaluated potential risk to potentia l receptors including current and future onsite workers and trespassers and current and future o ffsite adults consuming fish caught from Sabine Lake. All estimated risks for soil exposure areas were within acceptable levels and no constituents of concern (COCs) were identified for the receptors in these exposure areas. Ground water data were not used in the BHHRA due to the lack of ground wate r receptors (ground water is not used as a potable source and no ground water seeps were observed at the site). Surface water data were not used in the BHHRA. Although one surface water sample was ava ilable, the methodology used for its collection reflected ground water quality rather than surface wa ter. For sediment, copper, zinc, and ArochlorSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 23 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1242 were identified as potentially posing unacceptable risk based on protection of fish ingestion

exposures.
However, the modeled fish tissue concentrations used in the BHHRA were much higher than the
measured fish tissue concentrations from Sabine Lake as reported by the TDH (which were within acceptable levels). Therefore, modeled fish ingestion exposures are overly conservative and sediments do not warrant risk management on the basis of potential human health risk from fish ingestion ( CH2M HILL, 2005b ).


# 1.5.2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
Based on data available at the time, the 2005 BERA identified potential risks for the benthic invertebrate community that may be living in the intertidal area along the banks of the site, the nearshore area, and the offshore area. PRGs were de veloped for nine COCs in sediment. A study of the bioavailability of the metals in sediments at the s ite indicated that the metals in the intertidal area
are available and could be toxic in these areas. Da ta gaps were identified for the ecological risks
identified in sediment. Risks identified in sediments do not take into account site specific information including toxicity studies, community analysis of the existing benthic community in the intertidal area, or evaluation of the available habitat onsite. Site specific information could suggest that the
identified risks are over estimated or do not exist. An additional consideration identified in the BERA
was that due to the transient nature of sediments and the highly active surroundings, data that are four years old or older may not be reflective of current conditions ( CH2M HILL, 2005c ).

The sources of contamination in sediment were not identified with certainty. Several potential sources exist including the former landfill below the site, ground water, overland flow and erosion of surface soils, sunken barges in the nearshore area, and ot her facilities located adjacent to Sabine Lake. Analysis of shallow ground water from wells closes t to Sabine Lake indicated that concentrations could exceed screening values developed to be prot ective of the ground water to sediment exposure pathway. The screening values for metals are lower than most common laboratory limits and may not be appropriate for the site. Furthermore, the sha llow monitor wells containing the highest detections of contaminants in ground water concentrations were not located near sediment locations with elevated concentrations, suggesting a low infl uence of ground water on site sediments. The
concentrations of COCs in soil were elevated in some locations and therefore, stormwater runoff from the site could be a source of contamination ( CH2M HILL, 2005c ). A supplemental BERA, presented in Appendix E-2 and summarized in Section 4.2 , was performed in 2006 based on the supplemental RI results to assess these issues.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 24 OCTOBER 2006 

# 1.6 Overview of Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks

The Supplemental RI was performed to address the a dditional data needs identified in the BERA. The field activities were implemented to further eval uate the ground water to sediment contaminant migration pathway, update the sediment COC concen tration data for the Site, and evaluate the toxicity of sediments to the benthic organism comm unity in Sabine Lake near the Site. In addition, the former wastewater impoundments were investigated to determine if this area of the Site is a source of contamination to ground water.
EPA performed the Supplemental RI field investiga tion tasks during late May and early June 2006.
The field tasks included the installation of two additional shallow monitor wells downgradient from the former wastewater impoundments, completion and sampling of five soil borings in the area of the former wastewater impoundments, collection of nine composite sediment samples in Sabine Lake offshore from the site, and collection of sediment sa mples to perform toxicity testing on benthic organisms.
Detailed plans for the implementation of the Suppl emental RI tasks are described in the Field Sampling Plan (FSP), Version 1.1 ( CH2M HILL, 2006a ), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Version 1.1 ( CH2M HILL, 2006b ), and Site Management Plan (SMP), Version 1.0 ( CH2M HILL,
2006c ). The data quality objectives (DQOs) are provided in the QAPP. 

# 1.7 Report Organization

Section 2 of this report provides a description of the field activities completed in accordance with the site plans. This section includes a description of fi eld procedures followed for the collection of soil, ground water, and sediment data and manageme nt of Investigation-Derived Wastes (IDW). Section 3 discusses the analytical results and the nature a nd extent of contamination based on the results obtained from the Supplemental RI. Section 4 summarizes the results of the updated BHHRA and BERA based on the results obtained during the Supplement RI. Summary and conclusions of the Supplemental RI are provided in Section 5 , and a list of the references cited in this report is provided
in Section 6

.SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 25 OCTOBER 2006 

# 2.0 Data Collection Activities

This section describes the objectives and procedures fo r the Supplemental RI field activities. This section includes a discussion of the DQOs and descriptions of the field work performed. 

# 2.1 Data Quality Objectives

The objectives of the Supplemental RI/FS include the following:

• Collect and analyze sediment samples to determin e if contaminants in Sabine Lake sediments pose an unacceptable risk to benthic organisms.

• Collect and analyze subsurface soil samples from the wastewater impoundment area to determine if contaminants in the impoundment soil could ser ve as a potential source of contamination to ground water and eventually to benthic orga nisms in the sediments of Sabine Lake.

• Collect and analyze subsurface soil samples from the wastewater impoundment area to determine if contaminants in the impoundment soil pose an un acceptable risk to future onsite construction
workers.

• Install and develop monitoring wells at two of the soil boring locations in the wastewater impoundment area for associated ground water sampling.

• Collect and analyze ground water samples to de termine if site ground water is a current or potentially future source of contamination to benthic organisms in Sabine Lake.

• Store, analyze, and properly dispose of any IDW that is produced during field activities in support of the Supplemental RI/FS.
These project objectives have been used to de velop specific DQOs, which are qualitative and quantitative statements that describe the type and quality of data needed to determine the current state of the contaminant distribution and to effectively assess the risk to ecological and human health.
The DQO process used for this project follows the EPA QA/G4 guidance ( EPA, 2000 ) and uses the seven-step DQO development process. The DQOs provide a basis for the investigation activities to be performed, and they ensure that data collected during the investigation will be of sufficient and adequate quality for their intended use. A deta iled summary of the DQOs and the associated investigation activities established for the Supplemental RI/FS are presented in Table 2-1

.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 26 OCTOBER 2006 

# The first step in the DQO process is to identify the problem. Semivolatile organics and metals contamination at the Site may potentially pose a risk to ecological and human health. The extent of the contamination must be determined to assess the risk and to develop and implement remediation strategies for the Site. Each specific problem is discussed, by individual matrix, in Table 2-1

. The next step in the DQO process is to identify the decisions to be made. The overall goal of the Supplemental RI is to fill data gaps from the pr evious RI/FS in order to assess potential risk to ecological and human health and to support the de velopment of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site. Each specific decision to be made is discussed, by individual matrix, in Table 2-1

. The third step is to identify inputs to the decisi ons to be made. Historical information and data obtained from the previous investigations provided a significant amount of data regarding the Site. This data will be used in addition to the analytical data obtained from this i nvestigation to complete the risk assessments and support the development of the ROD. Table 2-1 provides more detailed information regarding the various inputs to the decisions.
The fourth step is to identify the boundaries of the study area. The Site is described in Section 1.1.2

. Sampling took place within the boundaries of the Site, and all analytical data were obtained utilizing EPA-approved methodology. Sampling included the coll ection of sediment from Sabine Lake, ground
water from monitor wells in the wastewater impoundment area, and subsurface soil from the wastewater impoundment area. Sampling occurred in late May and early June of 2006. More detailed information regarding the scope of field activities, the analyses performed, and the levels of data deliverables required from the laboratory are presented in Table 2-1

. To achieve the goals of the project, several decision rules were developed as the fifth step of the DQO process. More detailed information regarding each of the decision rules associated with the decisions developed in Step 2 of the DQO process are presented in Table 2-1

. The sixth step of the DQO process is to specify the limits of decision errors. The analytical results obtained in the investigation were reviewed to s upport the completion of the risk assessments and the development of the ROD. The analytical data obtaine d must be of sufficient completeness and quality to achieve the project DQOs. Random and/or system atic errors may be introduced during sample collection, sample handling and storage, sample an alysis, data reduction, and data reporting. The quality control (QC) measures specified in the QAPP and the FSP were followed to aid in the establishment of analytical quality and to mi nimize these errors. Appropriate EPA-approved analytical methods were used to ensure sufficient analytical sensitivity. Finally, the Project Chemist validated the analytical data in accordance with the EPA’s National Functional GuidelinesSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 27 OCTOBER 2006 

# ( EPA, 1994a
, EPA, 1994b , and EPA, 1994c ) to determine if the data met project DQOs (see
Section 2.6 and Appendix A ).
The final step of the DQO process is to optimize the design of the investigation. The primary goal of this investigation is support the completion of eco logical and human health risk assessments and the development of a ROD for the site. Historical data was reviewed during the project planning process to assess the data gaps that exist, and the inves tigation was designed to collect just enough data to support project objectives, avoiding any unnecessary sample collection. 

# 2.2 Monitor Well Installation and Soil Boring Activities

This section describes the activities associated with the installati on of the new monitor wells and completion of the soil borings.


# 2.2.1 Monitor Well Installation
A preliminary Site visit was conducted on May 11, 2006. During this Site visit, the locations for the
monitor well installations were determined. The current Site property owner was present during the Site visit. The property owner assisted with locating the approximate limits of the former wastewater impoundments to ensure that the monitor we lls were located downgradient from them.
Monitor well installation commenced on May 22, 2006. Two monitor wells (MW-136 and MW-137) were installed east of and downgradient from the former wastewater impoundments. The locations, along with the locations of the six exis ting site monitor wells, are shown in Figure 2-1 . Each monitor well was completed within the shallow ground water to a depth of about 20 feet bgs.
Each monitor well was drilled using the hollow-st em auger drilling method to the final completion depth. During drilling, soil samples were collected at five-foot intervals using split-core barrel samplers. Due to the wet, loose nature of the dredge spoils soil material, low to no recovery of soil material occurred below 5 to 8 feet bgs. Several attempts were made to increase recovery using direct-push technology (DPT) methods, 2-foot long split spoons, and soil catchers within the core barrels. Soil recovery was not increased using the different methods. After installation of monitor well MW137, a second borehole was dr illed using DPT next to the well to attempt to recover sufficient soil material for lithologic logging and the collection of samples for analytical testing. Where recovered, the soil samples were visually examined by the onsite geologist to characterize the lithology of the borehole. The soil material was screened prior to logging for organic vapors using a photoionization detector (PID). The lithologic da ta from each borehole was documented on Soil Boring Logs provided in Appendix B

.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 28 OCTOBER 2006 

# The drilling equipment (auger flights, core barrel samplers, and split spoons) were decontaminated between boreholes and prior to use at each dr illing location in accordance with the procedures specified in the FSP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a ). Decontamination fluids we re contained in 55 gallon drums. The soil cuttings were also contained in 55 gallon drums. The drums were labeled and transferred to the designated IDW storage area ons ite. Management of IDW is further discussed in
Section 2.5

. Where sufficient soil material had been recovered, soil samples were collected for analysis of TAL
total metals and TCL SVOCs. The FSP stated that at each location, a soil sample would be collected from above the landfill waste, within the landfill wa ste, and immediately below the landfill waste. Other than glass fragments and some pieces of broken bricks, no landfill wastes were encountered during drilling at either monitor well location. On e soil sample was collected from MW-136 and two soil samples were collected from MW-137. Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. The sample collection was in accordance with the procedur es described in the FSP and QAPP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a , and CH2M HILL, 2006b ). Each sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports containing th e analytical results. The analytical results are
discussed in Section 3.3.3

. After completion of each borehole, the monitor we lls were constructed. Each monitor well was constructed of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 po lyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing. The well screen
consisted of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC screen with a 0.010-in slot size. The screen lengths for both wells were 10-feet. A silica sand pack, cons isting of 20/40 silica sand, was placed in each
borehole annulus from the bottom of the borehole to a depth of approximately 2 feet above the top of the well screen. A hydrated bentonite seal was then placed on top of the sand pack to a depth of 1 foot bgs. The remaining annulus was backfilled with cement during well pad construction. The finished wells, which extend to a height of appr oximately 3 feet above the ground surface, are completed at the surface with a protective casing and locking cap assembly. Each well has a 3-foot by 3-foot concrete pad and is further protected by the installation of protective posts set around the well pad in concrete footings.
A summary of the well construction details is provided in Table 2-3 . The well construction details for the existing Site monitor wells are also provided in the Table 2-3 . Each monitor well was surveyed to the nearest 0.01 foot to provide horizontal and ver tical control after construction by a Registered Public Land Surveyor in the State of Texas. The survey information is also provided in Table 2-3

.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 29 OCTOBER 2006 

# The monitor wells were constructed in accord ance with the procedur es described in the FSP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a ). The construction details for each monitor well are provided on Well Completion Diagrams contained in Appendix B

. Each newly installed monitor well was developed after installation in accordance with the procedures contained in the FSP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a ). Each well was developed using surging combined with overpumping to remove sediment from the well and sand pack. During pumping, general water quality parameters, including pH, turbidity, conductiv ity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) were recorded on Well Development Logs. Drawdown was also measured during pumping. During initial pumping, wate r levels in both wells decreased to the top of the well screen prior to stabilization of water quality parameters. Each well was allowed to recover 24 hours and pumping continued on the following da y until water quality parameters had stabilized
and a minimum of 5 well volumes were remove d. Copies of the Well Development Logs are
contained in Appendix D . All development water was contained in 55 gallon drums. The drums were labeled and transferred to the designated IDW st orage area onsite. Management of IDW is further
discussed in Section 2.5

. 

# 2.2.2 Soil Boring Activities
A preliminary Site visit was conducted on May 11, 2006. During this Site visit, the locations for the soil borings were determined. The current Site property owner was pr esent during the Site visit. The property owner assisted with locating the approximate limits of the former wastewater impoundments to ensure that the soil borings we re located within the limits of the former wastewater impoundments.
Soil boring completion activities began on May 23, 2006. Five soil borings were completed within the identified boundary of the former wastewater impoundments. The locations of the soil borings are
shown in Figure 2-1 . Each soil boring was completed to a depth that was below the limits of the former landfill as determined by the onsite geologist . The soil borings were completed to depths of between 6 feet and 22 feet bgs.
Each soil boring was drilled using the DPT method to the final completion depth. During drilling, soil samples were collected at 2-foot intervals using a 2-foot long split spoon sampler. Due to the wet, loose nature of the dredge spoils soil material and the presence of landfill debris, low to no recovery of soil material occurred at various intervals during the drilling. Where recovered, the soil samples were visually examined by the onsite geologist to characterize the lithology of the borehole. The soil material was screened prior to logging for organic vapors using a PID. The lithologic data from each borehole was documented on Soil Boring Logs provided in Appendix B . At boring SM-142, refusalSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 30 OCTOBER 2006 

# was encountered within the landfill debris at 6 feet bgs. Attempts were made to move over distances
of between 3 and 25 feet and redrill the borehole at 5 additional locations, with the same result. This borehole was not completed to a depth below the landfill.
The drilling equipment (core barrel samplers and split spoons) was decontaminated between boreholes and prior to use at each drilling location in accordance with the pro cedures specified in the FSP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a ). Decontamination fluids were cont ained in 55 gallon drums. The soil cuttings were also contained in 55 gallon drums. The drums were labeled and transferred to the designated IDW storage area onsite. Management of IDW is further discussed in Section 2.5

. During drilling, up to 3 soil samples were collected at each boring location for analysis of TAL total
metals and TCL SVOCs. The FSP stated that at each location, a soil sample would be collected from above the landfill waste, within the landfill wast e, and immediately below the landfill waste. The sample collection was in accordance with th e procedures described in the FSP and QAPP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a , and CH2M HILL, 2006b ). Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. Including the monitor well borings, a total of 17 soil samples and 3 field d uplicate samples were collected. Each sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The analytical results are discussed in Section 3.3.1

. Each borehole was abandoned after completion. The boreholes were abandoned by backfilling the borehole with hydrated bentonite from total dept h to ground surface. A summary of the soil boring completion details is provided in Table 2-3 . Each soil boring was surveyed to the nearest 0.01-foot to provide horizontal and vertical control after c onstruction using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. The survey information is also provided in Table 2-3

. 

# 2.3 Water Level Measurement and Ground Water Sampling Activities

Water level measurement and ground water sampling activities oc curred on May 31, 2006. Water levels and total well depths we re measured at the two new and six existing monitor wells to the nearest 0.01-foot using a standard water level meter. The water level measurem ents are provided in Table 2-4

. After water level measurement, monitor wells MW-116B, MW-136, and MW-137 were sampled using a peristaltic pump. Each well was sampled using dedicated tubing. The FSP stipulated that the low-flow purge method would be used to purge an d sample each monitor well. Due to low yield,STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 31 OCTOBER 2006 

# which resulted in an inability to maintain a dr awdown during purging of less than 0.3-foot, wells MW-136 and MW-137 could not be sampled using the low-flow purge method. At both monitor wells, three well volumes were removed from the wells during purging and prior to sample collection. At the completion of purging at these two wells, the wells were almost dry. The pump was turned off and each well allowed to recover to 80 percent of th e original static water level prior to ground water sample collection.
During purging at each well, water quality parameters were monitore d and recorded on a Well Purge and Sampling Field Data Sheet. At monitor well MW-116B, a ground water sample was collected
after one well volume had been removed and the water quality parameters had stabilized. The water quality parameters that were recorded include d pH, temperature, DO, turbidity, ORP, and conductivity. Copies of the Well Purge and Sampling Field Data Sheets are provided in Appendix D

. After purging was completed at each well, a ground wa ter sample was collected for analysis of total TAL metals, dissolved TAL metals, TCL SVOCs, and PAHs using the single ion monitoring (SIM)
method to achieve detection limits that were lowe r than the ground water to surface water PCLs.
Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, incl uding location, depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. The dissolved TAL me tals samples were collected using a 0.45 micron filter. A total of 3 ground water samples and 1 fi eld duplicate sample were collected. Each sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory CH2M HILL Applied Sciences Laboratory for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain- of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The analyti cal results are discussed in Section
3.3.2 . The water level data are discussed in Section 3.2

. The purge water was contained in 55 gallon dr ums along with the well development and drilling
decontamination fluids. The drums were labeled a nd transferred to the designated IDW storage area onsite. Management of IDW is further discussed in Section 2.5

. 

# 2.4 Sediment Sampling Activities

Sediment sampling activities began on June 8, 20 06 and were completed on June 9, 2006. Nine sediment samples were collected during the sedimen t sampling activity. Eight sediment samples were
collected from areas where PRGs we re exceeded in the intertidal, n earshore, and offshore areas at the Site. One sediment sample was collected from a nearby reference location in Sabine Lake. The locations of the sediment samples are shown in Figure 2- 1 . Each sample was collected in water depths ranging between 2 and 15 feet. The US Fi sh and Wildlife Service (USFWS) assisted with the collection of the sediment samples.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 32 OCTOBER 2006 

# Each sediment sample was collect ed from a boat using a ponar dredge sampler. At each sampling area, a composite sample was collected from between 1 and 5 different locations within the sampling area. Each sediment sampling location was surveyed to the nearest 0.01-foot to provide horizontal and vertical control after construction using a G PS unit. The survey information is provided in
Table 2-3 . Each individual composite sample location point is shown on Figure 2- 1 . Due to the limited amount of sediment present in many of the areas, from 3 to over 30 individual grab samples of the sediment material were required to obtain enough sediment volume for sample analysis.
During the sediment sampling, descriptive informa tion from each location including depth of surface water, sediment color, general sediment moisture content, sediment grain size, sediment recovery, number of sample locations, number of grab sampl es collected for each composite, and water quality parameters were recorded on a Sediment Investig ation Sampling Form. The water quality parameters that were recorded included pH, temperature, DO, turbidity, ORP, conductivity, salinity, and TDS. Copies of the Sediment Investiga tion Sampling Forms are provided in Appendix D

. Each sediment sample was collected for analysis of TAL metals, TCL SVOCs, PAHs using the SIM method to achieve detection limits, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), grain size, benthic invertebrate taxonomic identification, and bioassay. Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, surface water depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. A total of 9 sediment samples and 1 field duplicate sample were coll ected. The samples collected for TAL metals, TCL SVOCs, PAHs, TOC, and grain size were submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. The samples collected for benthic invertebrate
taxonomic identification were submitted under Chain-o f-Custody to the offsite laboratory Dennington and Associates for analysis. The samples collect ed for bioassay were submitted under Chain-ofCustody to the offsite laboratory PBS&J Environm ental Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. Based on the sediment analytical results (discussed in Section 3.3.3 ), it was determined that the sediment bioassays were not required. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The analytical results are discussed in Section
3.3.3

. 

# 2.5 Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes

The field investigation activities resulted in the gene ration of soil, used personal protective equipment (PPE), and liquid IDW. This IDW was ma naged in accordance with the FSP and SMP ( CH2M HILL, 2006a , and CH2M HILL, 2006c ), as described in the following paragraphs.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 33 OCTOBER 2006 

# During the Supplemental RI drilling activities, 2 drums of liquid IDW and 9 drums of soil and PPE IDW were generated. In addition, drums remaining from the 2001 RI were also present at the Site. At the request of the EPA Remedial Project Manager, these wastes were consolidated onsite with the Supplemental RI wastes and characterized for dispo sal. The characterization r esults were received in late September. Disposal of the waste is expected to occur in early October. .
Liquid IDW included decontamination fluids, well de velopment water, and purge water. A composite sample was collected from the Suppl emental RI wastes to characterize the wastes and determine if the IDW qualified as a hazardous waste. Samples were co llected of the liquid IDW for the analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, Herbicides, Metals, a nd Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Gasoline Range Organics and Diesel Range Organics (TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO). Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. Each sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The liquid IDW will be disposed once the 2001 RI wastes have been consolidated onsite with the Supplemental RI wastes.
The soil IDW included drill cuttings from the soil borings. A composite sample was collected from the Supplemental RI wastes to characterize the wastes and determine if the IDW qualified as a hazardous waste using the Toxicity Characteris tic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Samples were collected of the soil IDW for the analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, Herbicides, Metals, TPH-GRO, and TPH-DRO. Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. E ach sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laborator y reports containing the analytical results. The soil IDW will be disposed once the 2001 RI wast es have been consolidated onsite with the Supplemental RI wastes. 

# 2.6 Data Validation Activities

Upon collection of the field data and receipt of th e analytical results from each laboratory, the data
were validated to assess the effect of the overall fi eld sample collection and laboratory analytical process on the usability of the data. The data were also validated to ensure that they were sufficient to meet the project DQOs. All data were validat ed based on the criteria set forth in EPA’s National
Functional Guidelines ( EPA, 1994a
, EPA, 1994b , and EPA, 1994c ). A technical memorandum detailing the data validation and data quality evaluation process and results is provided in Appendix A

.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 34 OCTOBER 2006 

# The following bullets provide a summary and the co nclusions of the data va lidation and data quality evaluation process:

• Overall, the quality of the analytical data was f ound to be within the QC limits established by the project DQOs, the analytical methods, and the guidelines presented in USEPA’s National
Functional Guidelines.

• Six non-detect results were rejected due to extremely poor matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recovery – 1 selenium result and 2 SVOC results in sample SM140SB03052306, and 3 SVOC results in sample C-SD-03. Other MS/MSD data and laboratory control sample (LCS) data suggested that these poor MS/MSD recoveries were
isolated occurrences.

• The project completeness goal was achieved for the overall data set and for each individual analytical method and sample matrix as well.

• Aside from the six rejected data points discussed above the other QC issues encountered were relatively minor and included the following:

− Minor blank contamination with metals.

− Low recovery in one continuing calibration verification (CCV) for TPH.

− One extraction holding time exceedence for a single pyridine result in an IDW sample.

− Minor serial dilution exceedence for chromium, cobalt, manganese, sodium, and lead.

− Field duplicate imprecision in soil samples due to soil heterogeneity and isolated imprecision in water samples.

− Minor recoveries and relative percent differenc es (RPDs) outside criteria in soil MS/MSDs. 

# 2.7 Risk Assessment Activities

The results obtained during the Supplemental RI we re used to update the BHHRA and BERA for the Site. Both risk assessments were updated to assess, based on the additional da ta, whether Site-related contaminants pose a potential current or future risk to human health or the environment in the absence of remedial action. This assessment provides a b asis for determining whether remedial action is necessary at the Site, identify wh ich exposure pathways might warrant remediation, and provide justification for performance of remedial actions . The results of the updated BHHRA and BERA are
summarized in Section 5 . The complete, updated BHHRA and BERA Technical Memoranda are provided in Appendices E-1 and E-2 , respectively.SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 35 OCTOBER 2006 

# 3.0 Supplemental RI Results

Provided in this section is a discussion of the results of the Supplemental RI field investigation. The geological conditions, ground water flow, soil analy tical results, ground water analytical results, and sediment analytical results are di scussed in the following sections. 

# 3.1 Geologic Conditions

As discussed in Section 1.2.4 , the geology at the Site, as determined during the RI, consists of a surface clay layer, landfill debris , and dredge spoils. The surface clay layer is a cap placed over the landfill material when the landfill was closed in 1974. The dredge spoils are material dredged from the Sabine-Neches Canal during construction and main tenance activities and consists of fine sand, silt, and clay ( Weston, 2003 ).
The geologic conditions encountered during the Su pplemental RI were c onsistent with those documented during the RI (the boring logs are contained in Appendix B ). The surface layer was fill material consisting mostly of clay. The fill material contains varying percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Broken pieces of glass and brick were ofte n present in the surface fill layer. The fill layer was encountered from ground surface to depths of 2 to 3.5 feet bgs. The landfill material consists of gravel, sand, silt, and clay fill containing debris, trash, and glass. The thickness of the landfill material varies in the area of the wastewater impoundments from 4.5 ft to 19 feet. The landfill material is present at depths between 2 feet bgs and 21.5 feet bgs. The landfill material was thickest at borings SM138 and SM140 (see Figure 2-1 for the boring locations). A lthough glass and brick fragments were encountered during the drilling of the monitor wells (MW-136 and MW-137 – see Figure 2-1 ), no landfill waste was encountered at these two locations. Below the landfill waste, dredge spoils were encountered at the soil boring locations. The dredge spoils were encountered below the surface clay fill layer at the monitor well locations. The dredge sp oils are composed of varying percentages of fine sand, silt, and clay. Saturated cond itions were generally encountered w ithin either the landfill material or dredge spoils at depths between 4 feet and 8 feet bgs. 

# 3.2 Water Levels

Water levels were collected from the two new and fi ve of the six existing site monitor wells on May 31, 2006. The water level me asurements are provided in Table 2-4 . The water level meter did not
record a water level in monitor well MW068B. The me ter was determined to be functioning properly.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 36 OCTOBER 2006 

# During water level collection, the meter provided false water level indications. It is suspected that the probe was sticking to the side of the well casing, and water along the well casing was causing the water level meter to provide inaccurate water level measurements at this well. This monitor well is screened within the deeper ground water zone at the Site.
The water levels collected for the shallow, perched ground water at the site were used to prepare a potentiometric surface contour map, which is provided in Figure 3-1 . As shown on Figure 3-1
, ground water in the shallow perched ground water zone at the Site is toward Sabine Lake. The ground water flow direction is toward the southeast in the shallow perched zone in th e southern portion of the Site, and toward the south-southeast in the northeast portion of the Site. Horizontal ground water flow gradients for the shallow perched ground water z one were calculated between monitor well pairs
MW068B/MW061B and MW136/MW116B. The horizontal flow gradient in the shallow perched ground water between monitor wells MW068B and MW061B is 0.02 ft/ft. The horizontal flow gradient between monitor wells MW136 and MW116B is 0.005 ft/ft. The horizontal ground water flow gradient is steeper across the southern portion of the Site, as compared with the northeast portion of the Site. The potentiometric contour lines on Figure 3-1 show the difference in the horizontal flow gradient within the shallow perched ground water zone. The contours are much closer together between monitor well MW068B and MW061A, indicating a steeper horizontal flow gradient between
these two wells. 

# 3.3 Analytical Results

This section discusses the analytical results obtai ned from the soil, ground water, and sediment sampling activities performed during the Supplemental RI. Copies of the laboratory reports containing the analytical results are included in Appendix C

. 

# 3.3.1 Soil Analytical Results
Soil samples were collected from seven soil borings between May 22 and May 24, 2006. Five borings were completed in the area of the former wast ewater impoundments (SB138 through SB142) and two borings were completed east of the wast ewater impoundments (SB136/MW136 and SB137/MW137). The samples collected from these borings were an alyzed for TAL total metals and TCL SVOCs.
The analytical results for metals det ected in soil samples are summarized in Table 3-1 . The analytical results for SVOCs detected in soil samples are summarized in Table 3-2

.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 37 OCTOBER 2006 

# Further evaluation of the soil analytical results in terms of human health and ecological risks are provided in Appendix E . The following sections provide a discussion of the results obtained from the soil samples.



# 3.3.1.1 Metals Results in Soils The following metals were detected in the Supplemental RI soil samp les: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, total chromi um, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-1 ).
Aluminum was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Aluminum concentrations ranged from 5,680 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 20,000 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).
Antimony was detected at 10 soil sample locations . Antimony was not detected at soil sample locations SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs), SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs, and 20 to 22 ft bgs), SM139 (0 to 2 ft bgs, and 6 to 8 ft bgs), SM140 (21.5 to 22 ft bgs), and SM141 (6.5 to 8 ft bgs). Where detected, the antimony concentrations ranged from 0.504 J mg/kg (see Table 3-1 for a definition of the data qualifiers) at SM141 (0 to 2 ft bgs) up to 11.7 J mg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Arsenic was detected at all 17 soil sample locati ons. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2.64 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 14.3 mg/kg at SM139 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Barium was detected at all 17 soil sample locati ons. Barium concentrations ranged from 43.3 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 540 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).
Beryllium was detected at all 17 soil sample locati ons. Beryllium concentrations ranged from 0.138 J mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 1.08 mg/kg at SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs).
Calcium was detected at all 17 soil sample lo cations. Calcium concentrations ranged from 3,630 mg/kg at SM141 (in the field duplicate sample collected from 6.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 79,000 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).
Cadmium was detected at 13 soil sample locations. Cadmium was not detected at soil sample locations SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs), SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs), SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs), and SM141 (6.5 to 8 ft bgs). Where detected, the cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.118 mg/kg at SM138 (0 to 2 ft bgs) up to 7.77 mg/kg at SM13 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Chromium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Chromium concentrations ranged from 9.3 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 81.1 mg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 38 OCTOBER 2006 

# Cobalt was detected at all 17 soil sample locations . Cobalt concentrations ranged from 2.61 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 16.6 mg/kg at SM139 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Copper was detected at all 17 soil sample locations . Copper concentrations ranged from 4.23 mg/kg at SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 547 mg/kg at SM139 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Iron was detected at all 17 soil sample locations . Iron concentrations ranged from 12,600 mg/kg at SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 329,000 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs).
Potassium was detected at all 17 soil sample lo cations. Potassium concentrations ranged from 612 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 3,110 at SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs).
Mercury was detected at all 17 soil sample loca tions. Mercury concentra tions ranged from 0.207 J mg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs) up to 1.04 mg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Magnesium was detected at all 17 soil sample lo cations. Magnesium concentrations ranged from 953 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 8,150 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).
Manganese was detected at all 17 soil sample loca tions. Manganese concentr ations ranged from 94.9 mg/kg at SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs) up to 1,350 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs).
Sodium was detected at all 17 soil sample locati ons. Sodium concentrations ranged from 132 mg/kg at SM138 (0 to 2 ft bgs) up to 1,860 mg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs).
Nickel was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Nickel concentrations ranged from 3.02 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 43.8 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).
Lead was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Lead concentrations ranged from 9.68 J mg/kg at SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 951 mg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Selenium was detected at only two soil sample locatio ns. Selenium was detected at a concentration of 1.99 mg/kg at SM137 (2 to 4 ft bgs) and 4.68 J mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).

Silver was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Silver concentr ations ranged from 0.328 J mg/kg at SM141 (in the field duplicate sample collected at 6. 5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 13.9 mg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Vanadium was detected at all 17 soil sample loca tions. Vanadium concentrations ranged from 10.9 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 35.6 mg/kg at SM141 (6.5 to 8 ft bgs).
Zinc was detected at all 17 soil sample locations . Zinc concentrations ranged from 37.8 J mg/kg at SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 4,140 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 39 OCTOBER 2006 

# The metals results in soil samples are presented on Figure 3-2 . Aerially, the metals results show no general pattern relative to higher metals concentra tions being associated specifically with the former wastewater impoundments. Maximum detections of individual metals occur at all seven boring locations. Vertically, the metals concentrations do not exhibit an increasing or decreasing trend relative to depth. However, the metals concentrati ons were typically higher in the samples collected
above or within the landfill waste material. The highest detection for aluminum, barium, calcium, magnesium, nickel, selenium, and zinc occurred in a sample collected from above the landfill waste material (all at SM136). The highest detection for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, sodium, lead, and silver occurred in a sample collected from within the landfill waste material. The highest detection for beryllium, potassium, and vanadium occurred in a sample collected from below the landfill waste material.



# 3.3.1.2 SVOC Results in Soils The following SVOCs were detected in the Suppl emental RI soil samples: 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2- methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, benzo (k) fluoranthene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butyl benzylphthalate, carbazole, ch rysene, cresols (m&p), di-n-butylphthalate, dibenzofuran, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol, and pyrene (see Table 3-2 ).
2,4-Dimethylphenol was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 8,020 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at two so il sample locations. The 2-methylnaphthalene concentration in these two soil samples was 2,170 J μg/kg (see Table 3-2 for a definition of the data qualifiers) at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) and 9,020 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Acenaphthene was detected at two soil sample locations. The acenaphthene concentration in these two soil samples was 1,480 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) and 4,410 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Acenaphthylene was detected at only one soil samp le location. The concentration was 5,830 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).

Anthracene was detected at thr ee soil sample locations. The anthracene concentrations ranged from 6,290 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 19,000 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 40 OCTOBER 2006 

# Benzo (a) anthracene was detected at three so il sample locations. The benzo (a) anthracene concentrations ranged from 2,050 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 10,800 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Benzo (a) pyrene was detected at three soil sample locations. The benzo (a) pyrene concentrations ranged from 1,470 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 10,800 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).

Benzo (b) fluoranthene was detected at three soil sample locations. The benzo (b) fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 1,640 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 15,100 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 7,320 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Benzo (k) fluoranthene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 4,330 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at eight soil sample locations. The bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations ranged from 120 J μg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs) up to 79,200 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Butyl benzylphthalate was detected at two soil sample locations. The butyl benzylphthalate concentration in these two soil samples was 840 J μg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) and 26,200 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Carbazole was detected at three soil sample loca tions. The carbazole concentrations ranged from 1,520 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 9,720 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Chrysene was detected at three soil sample lo cations. The chrysene concentrations ranged from 4,170 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 15,500 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Cresols (m & p) were detected at only one soil sa mple location. The concentration was 11,400 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Di-n-butylphthalate was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 33,200 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Dibenzofuran was detected at two soil sample loca tions. The dibenzofuran c oncentration in these two soil samples was 1,260 J μg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) and 4,130 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 41 OCTOBER 2006 

# Fluoranthene was detected at three soil sample lo cations. The fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 5,460 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 18,300 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Fluorene was detected at three soil sample lo cations. The fluorene concentrations ranged from 2,760 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 6,190 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 4,810 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
Naphthalene was detected at three soil sample loca tions. The naphthalene conc entrations ranged from 2,170 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 33,900 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Phenanthrene was detected at three soil sample locations. The phenanthrene concentrations ranged from 10,600 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 19,500 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Phenol was detected at only one soil sample loca tion. The concentration was 6,510 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs).
Pyrene was detected at three soil sample lo cations. The pyrene concentrations ranged from 6,300 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 13,700 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs).
The SVOC results in soil samples are presented on Figure 3-3 . SVOC detections occurred at borings SM138, SM140, SM141, and SM142. SVOCs were not detected in soil samples collected from the two soil borings where monitor wells were insta lled (MW136 and MW137) or at boring SM139. Only bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and butyl benzylphtha late were detected at boring SM138, and only bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at bor ing SB141. The remaining S VOCs were detected at borings SM140 and SM142 only. The SVOC concentra tions were higher in the samples collected at boring SM142. In general, the highest detections of SVOCs occurred in the soil samples collected from within the landfill waste material. At SM142, several SVOCs were also detected in the soil sample collected above the landfill waste material at a depth of 0 to 2 ft bgs. At this location, many SVOC concentrations were higher in the 0 to 2 ft bgs sample than in the 5 to 6 ft bgs sample (collected from within the landfill waste material). Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was the only SVOC detected in soil samples collected from below the landfill waste material. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at SM138 (at a depth of 20 to 22 ft bgs ) and SM140 (at a depth of 21.5 to 22 ft bgs). At both locations, the bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentration decreased in the sample collected below
the landfill waste material.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 42 OCTOBER 2006 

# 3.3.2 Ground Water Analytical Results
Ground water samples were collected from m onitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137 on May 31, 2006. These monitor wells are located downgr adient of the former wastewater impoundments within the shallow perched ground water zone. The samples collected from these wells were analyzed for TAL metals (total and dissolved), TCL SVOCs, and PAHs (via the SIM analytical method). The SIM analytical method was used to achieve lower detection limits for the PAHs than are achieved using the standard method (SW8270C). In addition, general ground water qua lity parameters were measured during purging at each monitor well.
The analytical results for metals detected in ground water samples (dissolved and total) are
summarized in Table 3-3 . The analytical results for SVOCs detected in ground water samples are
summarized in Table 3-4

. Further evaluation of the ground water analytical results in terms of ecological risks are provided in Appendix E . The following sections provide a discussion of the results obtained from the ground water samples.



# 3.3.2.1 General Ground Water Quality in th e Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone General water quality parameters were monitored during purging and sampling of the monitor wells. The parameters monitored included pH, temperatur e, DO, turbidity, ORP, and conductivity. The water quality data were recorded on Well Purg e and Sampling Field Data Sheets, provided in Appendix D . All water quality parameters were collect ed using a Horriba model U-22 meter and flow through cell. Because three well volumes were removed during purging at monitor wells MW136 and MW137, stabilization of all general wate r quality parameters was not achieved at these wells prior to ground water sample collection.
The pH measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 6.66 to 6.95 standard units. The pH measurements recorded just prior to sample coll ection were 6.86, 6.85, and 6.95 at monitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137 respectively. All measured pH values were near neutral (7.0).
Temperature measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 21.32 degrees Celsius (oC) to
23.58 oC.
DO measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 9.48 to 5.58 mg/L. The DO measurements recorded just prior to sample coll ection were 5.58 mg/L, 7.3 mg/L, and 6.6 mg/L at MW116B, MW136, and MW137, respectively. The DO measurements indicate oxidizing conditionsSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 43 OCTOBER 2006 

# exist in the perched ground water at the Site. DO me asurements can be positively (high) biased due to diffusion of oxygen from air into the sample tubing or flow through cell.
Turbidity measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 8.0 to greater than 1,000 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). The turbidity measurements recorded just prior to sample collection were 23.8 (NTUs), 67.3 NT Us, and 162 NTUs at MW116B, MW136, and MW137, respectively. Due to the high turbidity measurem ents, a filtered and an unfiltered ground water sample was collected at each well to obtaine d dissolved and total me tals concentrations.
The ORP measurements during ground water sampli ng ranged from -152 to -80 millivolts (mV). The ORP measurements recorded just pr ior to sample collection were -80 mV, -144 mV, and -94 mV at monitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137, resp ectively. The ORP measurements indicate reducing conditions in the shallo w perched ground water at the Site. These measurements contradict the DO measurements. For the reasons given regardin g the collection of the DO data, the ORP results are believed to be more representative of the conditions in the shallow perched ground water.
Conductivity measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 5.66 to 11.4 milliseimens per centimeter (mS/cm). The conductivity measurements r ecorded just prior to sample collection were - 5.66 mS/cm, 10.4 mS/cm, and 9.2 mS/cm at monitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137, respectively. The high conductivity values are most likely a result of the influence of the brackish water in Sabine Lake being in hydraulic communication with the shallow perched ground water and the presence of the landfill material within th e shallow perched ground water at the Site.



# 3.3.2.2 Metals Results in Ground Water The following metals were detected in the Suppl emental RI total metals ground water samples: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, cad mium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, potassium, mercury, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, lead, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-3 ). The following metals were detected in the Supplemen tal RI dissolved metals ground water samples: arsenic, barium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, lead, selenium, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-3 ).

Aluminum was detected in the total metals sa mple from two monitor wells. Aluminum was not
detected in the dissolved metals samples. The total aluminum concentrations ranged from 866 J μg/L at MW137 up to 12,500 μg/L at MW136.

Arsenic was detected in the total metals sample at the three monito r wells. Arsenic was detected in the dissolved metals sample at monitor well MW136 only. The total arsenic concentrations rangedSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 44 OCTOBER 2006 

# from 12.7 JH μg/L (see Table 3-3 for a definition of the data qualifiers) at MW116B up to 22.7 JH μg/L at MW137. The dissolved arsenic concentration at well MW136 was 14.1 JH μg/L.

Barium was detected in the total and dissolved me tals sample at all three monitor wells. The total barium concentrations ranged from 517 μg/L in the field duplicate sample at monitor well MW137 up to 1,220 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved barium concentrations ranged from 543 μg/L at well MW116B up to 1,250 μg/L at well MW136.
Beryllium was detected in the total metals sample at two monitor wells. Beryllium was not detected in the dissolved metals samples. The total beryllium concentration was 0.58 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample from well MW137 and 0.684 J μg/L at MW136.

Calcium was detected in the total and dissolved me tals sample at all three monitor wells. The total calcium concentrations ranged from 129,000 μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137 up to 201,000 μg/L at well MW116B. The dissolved calcium concentrations ranged from 146,000 μg/L at well MW137 up to 203,000 μg/L at well MW116B.

Cadmium was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at two monitor wells. The total cadmium concentrations were 0.457 J μg/L at well MW137 and 1.22 J μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved cadmium concentrations were 0.447 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.714 J μg/L at MW137.
Chromium was detected in the total metals samp le at all three monitor wells. Chromium was not detected in the dissolved metals samples. The total chromium concentrations ranged from 3.97 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 14.5 μg/L at well MW136.
Cobalt was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at two monitor wells. The total cobalt concentrations were 5.87 J μg/L at well MW136 and 7.95 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137. The dissolved cobalt concentrations were 1.65 J μg/L at MW136 and 4.91 J μg/L at MW137.
Copper was detected in the total metals sample at two monitor wells. Copper was detected in the dissolved metals sample at one monitor well. The to tal copper concentrations were 16.7 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137 and 31.4 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved copper concentration was 5.1 J μg/L in the fi eld duplicate sample from well MW137.

Iron was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at all three monitor wells. The total iron concentrations ranged from 1,500 J μg/L at well MW137 up to 35,800 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved iron concentrations ranged from 752 μg/L at well MW137 up to 27,800 μg/L at well MW136.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 45 OCTOBER 2006 

# Potassium was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at all three monitor wells. The total potassium concentrations ranged from 39,500 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 65,400 J μg/L at well MW137. The dissolved potassium concentrations ranged from 39,200 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 60,400 J μg/L at well MW136.
Mercury was detected in the total metals samples at two monitor wells. Mercury was not detected in the dissolved metals samples. The total mercury concentrations were 0.0355 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137 and 0.0455 J μg/L at well MW136.
Magnesium was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The total magnesium concentrations ranged from 101,000 μg/L at well MW116B up to 317,000 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved magnesium concentrations ranged from 93,700 μg/L at well MW116B up to 300,000 μg/L at well MW136.
Manganese was detected in the total and dissolved me tals samples at all three monitor wells. The total manganese concentrations ranged from 1,400 μg/L at well MW116B up to 8,390 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved manganese concentrations ranged from 1,310 μg/L at well MW116B up to 7,680 μg/L at well MW136.

Sodium was detected in the total and dissolved me tals samples at all three monitor wells. The total sodium concentrations ranged from 591,000 μg/L at well MW116B up to 1,720,000 J μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved sodium concentrations ranged from 521,000 μg/L at well MW116B up to 1,550,000 J μg/L at well MW136.

Nickel was detected in the total and dissolved me tals samples at all three monitor wells. The total nickel concentrations ranged from 13.6 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 164 μg/L at well MW116B. The dissolved nickel concentrations ranged from 7.41 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 170 μg/L at well
MW116B.
Lead was detected in the total metals samples at all three monitor wells. Lead was detected in the dissolved metals samples at two monitor wells. The total lead concentrations ranged from 2.26 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 71 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved lead concentrations ranged from 2.37 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137 to 2.49 J μg/L at well MW116B.
Selenium was not detected in the total metals sampl es. Selenium was detected in the dissolved metals sample at one monitor well. Selenium was detected at a concentration of 9.41 J μg/L in the dissolved metals sample at well MW116B.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 46 OCTOBER 2006 

# Vanadium was detected in the total metals samples at all three monitor wells. Vanadium was detected in the dissolved metals samples at two monitor we lls. The total vanadium concentrations ranged from 1.87 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 24.6 J μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved vanadium concentrations were 1.69 J μg/L at well MW116B and 5.2 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well
MW137.

Zinc was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The total zinc concentrations ranged from 48.1 μg/L at well MW116B up to 258 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved zinc concentrations ranged from 34.8 μg/L at well MW136 up to 72.8 μg/L at well MW137.
In general, the total metals and dissolved metals results were similar for each sample (see Table 3-3 ). However, for aluminum, arsenic, chromium, and iron, the total and dissolved metals concentrations varied by as much as an order-of-magnitude differe nce in three of the four samples collected. For beryllium, copper, vanadium, and zinc, the total a nd dissolved metals concentrations varied by as much as an order-of-magnitude difference in two of the four samples collected. For each of these analytes, the total metals concentrations were higher than the dissolved metals concentrations.
The total metals results in ground water are presented on Figure 3-4 . Selenium was not detected in the total metals samples. With the exception of arsenic, calcium, cobalt, potassium, and nickel, the highest total metals concentrations occur in upgradient monitor well MW136. Monitor well MW136 is located downgradient of the former wastewater impoundments, but this well is also located downgradient of the PBLS Site (see Figure 3-1 ). Arsenic concentrations were similar in all three wells. Beryllium, cobalt, sodium, and potassium c oncentrations were similar in wells MW136 and MW137 and slightly lower in downgradient well MW 116B. Calcium concentrations were similar in wells MW116B and MW136 and slightly lower in well MW137. The highest nickel concentrations occurred in downgradient well MW116B.
The dissolved metals results in ground water are presented on Figure 3-5 . Aluminum, beryllium, chromium, and mercury were not detected in the dissolved metals samples. Arsenic, barium, and iron concentrations were highest in monitor well MW136. Arsenic was detected in the dissolved sample from MW136 only. Barium and iron concentrati ons were similar in wells MW137 and MW116B. Cadmium, cobalt, copper, vanadium, and zinc con centrations were highest in monitor well MW137. The cadmium concentration was slightly lower in MW136, and cadmium was not detected in MW116B. The cobalt was not detected in the dissolved sample from MW116B. Copper was detected in the dissolved samples from MW137 only. Vanadi um was not detected in the dissolved sample from MW136, and zinc concentrations were similar in MW136 and MW116B. Potassium,STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 47 OCTOBER 2006 

# manganese, and sodium concentrations were si milar in MW136 and MW137 and lower in MW116B. Calcium, magnesium, nickel, and selenium concentrations were highest in monitor well MW116B. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations were higher in well MW136 than in well MW137. Nickel concentrations were slightly higher in well MW137 than in well MW136. Selenium was only detected in the dissolved sample from MW116B. L ead concentrations in MW137 and MW116B were similar, while lead was not detected at MW136. Most dissolved metals concentrations are higher in the downgradient monitor wells MW116B and MW137 than in MW136. Arsenic, iron, and barium concentrations are higher upgradient in well MW136, while cadmium, potassium, and manganese concentrations are higher in upgradient wells MW 136 and MW137 than in MW116B.



# 3.3.2.3 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Results in Ground Water The following SVOCs were detected in the Supplem ental RI ground water samples: diethylphthalate, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, benzo (k) fluor anthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) perylene, naphthalene , phenanthrene, and pyrene (see Table 3-4 ).
Diethyphthalate was detected at all three monitor wells. The diethylphthalate concentrations ranged from 1.83 J (see Table 3-4 for a definition of the data qualifiers ) μg/L at well MW116B up to 4.28 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137.
Acenaphthene was detected at all three monitor wells. The acenaphthene concentrations ranged from 0.0114 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 1.12 μg/L at well MW116B.
Acenaphthylene was detected at monitor well MW116B only. The concentration was 0.0408 μg/L.

Benzo (a) anthracene was detected at two monitor wells. The benzo (a) anthracene concentration was 0.0042 J μg/L at well MW137 and 0.0078 J μg/L at well MW116B.
Benzo (a) pyrene was detected at two monitor we lls. The benzo (a) pyrene concentration was 0.0028 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0037 J at well MW137.

Benzo (b) fluoranthene was detected at two monito r wells. The benzo (b) fluoranthene concentration was 0.0034 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0036 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at MW137.
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene was detected at two monito r wells. The benzo (g,h,i) perylene concentration was 0.0018 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0027 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at MW137.

Benzo (k) fluoranthene was detected at two monito r wells. The benzo (k) fluoranthene concentration was 0.0015 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0037 J μg/L at well MW137.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 48 OCTOBER 2006 

# Chrysene was detected at all th ree monitor wells. The chrysene concentrations ranged from 0.0033 J μg/L at MW136 up to 0.0046 J μg/L at well MW116B.

Fluoranthene was detected at all three monitor we lls. The fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 0.0101 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 0.532 μg/L at well MW116B.

Fluorene was detected at all three monitor wells . The fluorene concentrations ranged from 0.004 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 0.0573 μg/L at well MW116B.
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene was detect ed at two monitor wells. The inde no (1,2,3-cd) pyrene concentration was 0.0018 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0027 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at MW137.
Naphthalene was detected at all three monitor we lls. The naphthalene concentrations ranged from 0.0085 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 0.0247 J μg/L at well MW137.

Phenanthrene was detected at all three monitor wells. The phenanthrene concentrations ranged from 0.0063J μg/L at MW116B up to 0.0161 J μg/L at well MW137.
Pyrene was detected at all three monitor wells. The pyrene concentrations ranged from 0.0079 J μg/L at well MW137 up to 0.297 μg/L at well MW116B.
The SVOC results in ground water are presented on Figure 3-6 . The concentrations of most SVOCs detected in ground water samples were high est in either monitor well MW116B or MW137. Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo (a ) anthracene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, and pyrene concentrations were highest in MW11 6B. Diethylphthalate, benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, benzo (k) fluora nthene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene concentrations were higher in MW137. Most SVOCs that were de tected in ground water were present at concentrations near the laborator y reporting limits. SVOC concentrations are higher in the two downgradient monitor wells (MW116B and MW137) than in upgradient well MW136.


# 3.3.3 Sediment Analytical Results
Sediment samples were collected from eight locations between June 8 and June 9, 2006. Each sample was comprised of 3 to 30 ponar grabs composit ed from 1 to 5 sampling locations. A background sample was also collected (Station I). Samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. These data were used in the Supplemental BERA to ev aluate potential risk to benthic invertebrates in the areas of concern as identified in the FFS ( Appendix E-2 ). The analytical results for metals detected in sediment samples are provided in Table 3-5 . The analytical results for SVOCs detected in sediment samples are provided in Table 3-6

.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 49 OCTOBER 2006 

# The only protocol devia tions from those described in the DQOs were those indicating toxicity bioassays would be performed using Leptocheirus plumulosus or Neanthes virens 10-day sediment bioassays, and that macroinvertebrate taxonomic id entification would be performed for community analysis. These analyses were not performed due to the very low likelihood for adverse effects expected from sediments adjacent to SMS based on the marg inal exceedences of primary screening values in recent samples and source evaluation, as discussed in the Supplemental BERA (see Appendix E-2 ).
Descriptions of field sampling locations, includi ng surface water quality measurements at sampling locations and particle size analyses, are provided in Attachment B of the Supplemental BERA (see Appendix E-2 )

.


# 3.3.3.1 Metals Results in Sediment The following metals were detected in the Supplemental RI sediment samples: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, to tal chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, seleni um, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-5 ).
The metals aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, lead, selenium, vanadium, and zinc were detected at the background sample location (I-SD). Antimony, cadmium , copper, mercury, silv er, and thallium were not detected at the background location. For all metals, the concentrations were lowest at the background location.
Aluminum was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The aluminum concentrations ranged from 4,040 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 16,200 mg/kg at location D-SD.
Antimony was detected at two onsite sediment sample locations. The antimony concentration was 0.121 J (see Table 3-5 for a definition of the data qualifiers) mg/kg at location B-SD and 0.237 JL at
location C-SD.
Arsenic was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.59 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 6 mg/kg at location A-SD.
Barium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The barium concentrations ranged from 27.7 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 264 mg/kg at location C-SD.
Beryllium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The beryllium concentrations ranged from 0.266 J mg/kg at location F- SD up to 0.826 mg/kg at location D-SD.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 50 OCTOBER 2006 

# Calcium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The calcium concentrations ranged from 556 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 2,820 mg/kg at location A-SD. Cadmium was detected at seven onsite sediment sample locations. Cadmium was not detected at sample location F-SD. The cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.0846 J mg/kg at loca tion D-SD up to 0.158 mg/kg at location H-SD.
Chromium was detected at all eight onsite sedimen t sample locations. The chromium concentrations ranged from 6.32 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 17.3 mg/kg at location D-SD.
Cobalt was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The coba lt concentrations ranged from 3.13 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 7.01 mg/kg in the field duplicate sample at location H-SD.
Copper was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The coppe r concentrations ranged from 5.24 mg/kg at location H-SD up to 18.3 mg/kg at location E-SD.
Iron was detected at all eight onsite sediment samp le locations. The iron c oncentrations ranged from 9,840 B mg/kg at location F-SD up to 17,100 B mg/kg at location C-SD.
Potassium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The potassium concentrations ranged from 717 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 3,200 JH mg/kg at location C-SD.
Mercury was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The mercury concentrations ranged from 0.0201 J mg/kg at location D-SD up to 0.0405 J mg/kg at location C-SD.
Magnesium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The magnesium concentrations ranged from 1,050 mg/kg at loca tion E-SD up to 4,620 mg/kg at location C-SD.
Manganese was detected at all eight onsite sedimen t sample locations. The manganese concentrations ranged from 65.7 mg/kg at location D-SD up to 405 mg/kg at location C-SD.
Sodium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The sodium concentrations ranged from 1,610 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 7,290 mg/kg at location C-SD.
Nickel was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The nickel concentrations ranged from 5.38 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 12.4 mg/kg at location A-SD.
Lead was detected at all eight onsite sediment sa mple locations. The lead concentrations ranged from 10.9 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 18.7 mg/kg at location A-SD.
Selenium was detected at all eight onsite sedim ent sample locations. The selenium concentrations ranged from 2.22 mg/kg at location D-SD up to 4.66 mg/kg at location A-SD.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 51 OCTOBER 2006 

# Silver was detected at one onsite sediment sample locations. The silver concentration was 0.263 J mg/kg at location F-SD.
Thallium was detected at all eight onsite sedimen t sample locations. The thallium concentrations ranged from 0.0347 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 0.28 mg/kg at location A-SD.
Vanadium was detected at all eight onsite sedimen t sample locations. The va nadium concentrations ranged from 9.89 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 30.2 JH mg/kg at location C-SD.
Zinc was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The zinc c oncentrations ranged from 27.2 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 94.7 mg/kg at location A-SD.
The metals results in sediment are presented on Figure 3-7 . The metals concentrations in sediment were higher at locations A-SD and C-SD for most metals. The metals concentrations in sediment were lowest at locations B-SD, D-SD, E-SD, and F-SD.



# 3.3.3.2 SVOC Results in Sediment The following SVOCs were detected in the Supplem ental RI sediment samples: 2-methylnaphthalene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene , benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene (see Table 3-6 ). SVOCs were not detected as the background sediment sample location I-SD or at onsite sediment sample location H-SD.
2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at onsite sediment sample location F-SD only. The 2- methylnaphthalene concentration at this location was 17.9 μg/kg.
Anthracene was detected at onsite sediment sample location B-SD only. The anthracene concentration at this location was 10 J (see Table 3-6 for a definition of the data qualifiers) μg/kg.
Benzo (a) anthracene was detected at six onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (a) anthracene concentrations ranged from 8.23 J μg/kg at lo cation C-SD up to 56 J μg/kg at location A-SD.
Benzo (a) pyrene was detected at five onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (a) pyrene concentrations ranged from 9.2 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 54.8 J μg/kg at location A-SD.

Benzo (b) fluoranthene was detected at five onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (b) fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 10.5 J μg/ kg at location C-SD up to 143 μg/kg at location
A-SD.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 52 OCTOBER 2006 

# Benzo (g,h,i) perylene was detected at three ons ite sediment sample locations. The benzo (g,h,i) perylene concentrations ranged from 9.06 J μg/kg at location F-SD up to 16.6 J μg/kg at location B-SD.

Benzo (k) fluoranthene was detected at onsite sed iment sample location A-SD only. The benzo (k) fluoranthene concentration at this location was 29.8 J μg/kg.
Chrysene was detected at six onsite sediment samp le locations. The chrysene concentrations ranged from 8.09 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 82.6 μg/kg at location A-SD.
Fluoranthene was detected at seven onsite sediment sample locations. The fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 11 J μg/kg at loca tion C-SD up to 170 μg/kg at location A-SD.
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene was detected at onsite sediment sample location B-SD only. The indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene concentration at this location was 10.9 J μg/kg.
Naphthalene was detected at onsite sediment sample location F-SD only. The naphthalene concentration at this location was 10.6 J μg/kg.

Phenanthrene was detected at five onsite sediment sample locations. The phenanthrene concentrations ranged from 8.76 J μg/kg at location F-SD up to 58.9 μg/kg at location A-SD.
Pyrene was detected at six onsite sediment sample locations. The pyrene concentrations ranged from 19.8 μg/kg at location D-SD up to 104 μg/kg at location A-SD.
The SVOC results in sediment are presented on Figure 3- 8 . SVOC concentrations in sediment samples were highest at sample location A-SD. The SVOC concentrations decrease away from sample location A-SD toward the southeast.SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 53 OCTOBER 2006 

# 4.0 Summary of Risk Assessments

This section provides a summary of the evaluation of the estimated risks asso ciated with the State Marine Site contaminants. The full BHHRA and BERA TMs are provided in Appendix E

. 

# 4.1 Summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment

The following sections summarize the conclusions of the BHHRA for the State Marine Superfund Site, completed by CH2M HILL in July 2006 ( Appendix E-1 ).


# 4.1.1 Data Used in the HHRA

Soil

All historical soil data from the 0-5 ft interval th at were available to CH2M HILL electronically as of June 17, 2005, were used in the BHHRA. The available data consisted of soil samples collected in 1995 and 2001 from various areas, including six hot spot areas that were identified during the ESI and RI. In additional, the BHHRA incorporated supplem ental soil samples collected from the Wastewater Impoundment Area in May 2006. The following data groupings were used in the BHHRA:
• Wastewater Impoundment Area • Wastewater Treatment Facility
• Tar Burn Area • Current Aboveground Storage Tank Area
• Maintenance Shed Area
• Former Lauren Tank Farm
• Non-Source Area

Ground Water
Ground water data were not used in the BHHRA due to the lack of ground water receptors (ground water is not used as a potable source, chemicals of potential concern are inorganics and semivolatile organic compounds, and no ground water seeps were observed during the site reconnaissance visit on June 17, 2005).STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 54 OCTOBER 2006 

# Surface Water

Surface water data were not used in the BHHRA. (Although one surface water sample was available, the methodology used for its collection reflected ground water quality rather than surface water).

Sediment

All historical sediment data collected from the 0 to 6-inch interval and available to CH2M HILL electronically as of June 17, 2005, were used in the BHHRA. The available data consisted of sediment samples collected in 1995 and 2001. All sediment groupings previously identified in the ESI
and RI data sets were combined into one sediment grouping. The sediment data were used to model
edible fish tissue concentrations.

The 2006 sediment data were not included in th e BHHRA. However, sediment concentrations
detected in 2006 were lower than th e sediment concentrations previously detected that were used to model fish tissue concentrations. Therefore, if the 2006 data had been used in the BHHRA, the
modeled fish tissue concentrations and estimated risks would be lower than those presented in the
BHHRA. Based on the measured fish tissue concen trations in Sabine Lake, no chemicals warranting risk management were identified for sediment.

Fish

Historical edible fish tissue data were collected by TDH in Sabine Lake, and are discussed in the Uncertainty Assessment of the BHHRA.


# 4.1.2 Potential Receptors
The following receptors were identified onsite and near the Site and were evaluated for significant exposure pathways in the BHHRA:

• Current onsite – industrial/commercial worker (site owner), adult trespasser (although very infrequent since the site is remote in relation to residential areas)

• Current offsite – adult or child eating fish caught in Lake Sabine

• Future onsite – industrial/commercial worker, constr uction worker, and adult trespasser (although very infrequent since the site is remote in relation to residential areas)

• Future offsite – adult or child eating fish caught in Sabine LakeSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 55 OCTOBER 2006 

# 4.1.3 Summary In summary, all risks for soil exposure areas ar e within acceptable leve ls and no COCs were identified for the receptors in these exposure areas.
Based on sediment samples collected in 1995 and 2001, copper, zinc, and Arochlor 1242 were identified as chemicals potentially posing unacceptable risks for fish ingestion exposures. The 2006 sediment data were not incl uded in the BHHRA. However, sediment
concentrations detected in 2006 were lower th an the sediment concentrations previously
detected that were used to model fish tissue concentrations. Therefore, if the 2006 data had been used in the BHHRA, the modeled fish ti ssue concentrations and estimated risks would be lower than those pr esented in the BHHRA.
The reasonable maximum exposure risks calc ulated for a current/future offsite
fisherman based on the modeled fish tissue concentrations are summarized below.
Ingestion exposures to COPCs in sediment (bioaccumulated by fish in Sabine Lake) were
estimated for an adult. An estimated ELCR of 2x10-4 and estimated HI of 7 were calculated. One COPC (Arochlor 1242) was estimated to exceed an individual ELCR of 1x10-5 and copper and zinc were estimated to exceed an HI of 1.
However, it is important to note that the mode led fish tissue concentrations used in the BHHRA are much higher than the measured fish tissue concentrations from Sabine Lake as reported by the TDH. Therefore, the modele d fish tissue concentrations are overly conservative, and it is recommended that the measur ed concentrations be used rather than the
modeled concentrations. PCBs were not det ected in the fish tissue samples collected by TDH, and the maximum detected concentrations of copper and zinc in edible fish tissue were approximately one order of magnitude lower than the modeled concentrations. Since estimated ELCRs and HIs are directly proportion al to exposure point concentration, use of
the measured fish tissue concentrations in the BHHRA would result in ac ceptable risk levels from fish ingestion exposures. Therefore, no COCs were identified for sediments and no
further action in sediments is needed fo r protection of fish ingestion exposures.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 56 OCTOBER 2006 

# 4.2 Summary of the Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk
Assessment

The following sections summarize the conclusions of the supplemental baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) for the State Marine Superf und Site, completed by CH2M HILL in July 2006 ( Appendix E-2 ).


# 4.2.1 Data Used in the Supplemental BERA
A focused sediment sampling program was executed to investigate current chemical concentrations at target areas (areas of elevated concentrations or hot-spots) identified during the 2006 feasibility study as requiring further investigation. The sampling prog ram targeted the classes of constituents (metals and PAHs) retained as COCs in th e BERA in the “hot-spots” viciniti es. Chemical concentrations in sediment were used to evaluate the toxicity to lower trophic level organisms and potential source
areas for Sabine Lake:

• Lake Sabine Sediment – Surface sediment composites of 2 to five samples were collected from each of eight locations where concentrati ons of historical samples exceeded ecological
risk-based criteria. Potential risks to benthi c invertebrates were evaluated through the comparison of sediment chemistry to sediment screening values.

• SMS Ground water – Potential risk to sediment dwelling organisms resulting from SMS ground water discharging to sediment and thus representing sediment pore water was addressed through the evaluation of the groun d water-to-sediment pathway. Ground water data analyzed were used to determine if ground water is a source contributing to
contamination identified in sediments in Sabine Lake adjacent to the Site.

• SMS Soil – Potential risk to sediment dwelling organisms resulting from SMS soil runoff as overland flow and becoming incorporated in the sediment was addressed through the evaluation of the soil-to-sediment pathway. Curre nt and historical soil data were used to
determine if SMS surface soil is a source contri buting to contamination identified in Sabine Lake sediments adjacent to the Site.


# 4.2.2 Summary
Risk analysis performed in 2005 concluded that elev ated risks in sediment we re marginal and limited to small hot-spots. Recent sediment sampling in the areas of previous hot-spots indicates that concentrations of almost all inorganic and organic constituents were lower in May 2006, than in theSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 57 OCTOBER 2006 

# historical dataset. There were very few exceed ences of conservative ecological risk screening
benchmarks and those that did occur were of lo w magnitude and only in isolated samples. The supplemental BERA weight of evidence analysis conducted for COPCs indicates there is very low probability of any elevated risk to sediment dwelling organisms from COCs originating at the SMS.

The exact source of the low level risk in isolated sediment areas is uncertain; however, based on further evaluation, SMS is not the likely source of these chemical concentrations. Current Site ground water concentrations do not exceed aquatic orga nism exposure to water-screening benchmarks protective of benthic invertebrates for COPECs iden tified in the Supplemental BERA. In addition, the
distribution of shallow monitor wells with maximu m detected ground water concentrations were not
associated with sediment locations with elevated concentrations, a low ground water hydraulic gradient exists across the site, and the high surface water flows in the shipping canal all suggest a low influence of ground water on site sediments. Su rface runoff was also investigated as a potential source of contaminants to the sediment. Few detected concentrations of the sediment COCs in soils, the depth of high concentration samples in soils, surface hydrology, and the unlikely soil erosion due to heavy vegetation suggest that th is source is also unlikely. Sunken barges in the near shore area and other facilities adjacent to the lake as sources of the low level risks were not investigated.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 59 OCTOBER 2006 

# 5.0 Summary and Conclusions

The Supplemental RI field investigation was impl emented to evaluate the potential impacts of
contaminated sediments in Sabine Lake to bent hic organisms. The BERA and FFS performed during
2005 indicated that nine areas existed where contamin ant concentrations in sed iments exceeded PRGs for the Site. The BERA indicated that uncertainty existed with the sediment and ground water data collected during the 2001 RI. The BERA recommended that updated data collection and evaluation of the ground water-to-sediment pathway might reduce th e uncertainties associated with the BERA. In addition, further evaluation of the former wastew ater impoundment area of the Site as a source of contamination was included as part of the Supplemen tal RI to address stakeholder concerns in this portion of the Site.
The overall objectives of the Supplemental RI were to address concerns regarding the wastewater ponds acting as a source of contamination to sedimen ts in Sabine Lake through the ground water-tosediment pathway, update the sediment data in the nine areas where PRGs were determined to be exceeded in the 2005 BERA and FFS Reports, and update the BERA and BHHRA using the updated Site data. To address these objectives, five soil bor ings were completed and soil sampling performed within the former wastewater impoundments. Soil sampl es were collected to evaluate if the former wastewater impoundments are acting as a source of contamination to the ground water. Two additional soil borings were co mpleted downgradient (east) of the former wastewater ponds for purposes of soil sample collection and monitor well installations. Ground water samples were collected from the two newly installed monito r wells and one existing monitor well located downgradient of the former wastewater impoundment s. The ground water samp ling was performed to determine if ground water contamination present at th e Site is acting as a source of contamination to the sediments. Sediment samples were collected from the nine areas where PRGs were exceeded in Sabine Lake to update the Site data for completion of the BERA. Both the BERA and BHHRA were updated using the additional data collected during the Supplemental RI to evaluate the risks posed by Site contaminants to human and ecological receptors.
The following sections discuss summarize the results and present the conclusions based on the data collected at the Site during the Supplemental RI. Risks to both human and ecological receptors are
also discussed.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 60 OCTOBER 2006 

# 5.1 Nature of Soil Impacts

The Supplemental RI included the collection of 17 soil samples from seven boring locations for the analysis of TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. The analyti cal results indicate that Site soils are impacted by both metals and SVOCs. Metals concentrations are typically higher in samples collected from
above and within the landfill waste materials.

The metals concentrations show no general pattern relative to higher concentrations being located
within the area of the former w astewater impoundments. Selenium w as the only metal determined to exceed ESVs within Site sediments (see Appendix E-2 ). Selenium was detected in only two soil samples (at 0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs at SM136, and at 2 to 4 ft bgs at SM137). Based on the lack of detection of selenium in soil samples, the soils are unlikely to be the ultimate source of selenium within the site
sediments.
SVOCs were primarily detected at borings SM140 and SM142. These two borings were located at the center (SM140) and southeast corner of the fo rmer wastewater impoundments. At SM140, SVOCs were detected primarily within the sample collected from within the landfill waste material (at 7.5 to 8 ft bgs). At SM142, SVOCs were detected from soil samples collected both above and within the landfill waste material (at 0 to 2 ft and 5 to 6 ft bgs , respectively). SVOC concentrations in soil were highest at boring SM142. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phtha late was the only SVOC detected in soil samples
collected from below the landfill waste material. The da ta indicate that the landfill waste material is the most likely source of the SVOCs, especially at location SM140, and that the SVOCs are not specifically associated with the former wastewater impoundments. No SVOCs were determined to be of ecological concern in Site sediments. 

# 5.2 Nature of Ground Water Impacts

The Supplemental RI included the collection of th ree ground water samples from three monitor well locations for the analysis of total and dissol ved TAL metals—TCL SVOCs, and PAHs. The three monitor wells were completed within the shallow perched ground water zone. The analytical results indicate that the shallow perched ground water zone is impacted with metals and low concentrations
of SVOCs.
Total metals concentrations in the shallow perche d ground water zone were generally higher in the upgradient monitor well MW136. This well is located downgradient of both the former wastewater impoundments and the PBLS Site. Most dissolved me tals concentrations in the shallow perched ground water zone were genera lly higher in the two downgradient monitor wells MW137 andSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 61 OCTOBER 2006 

# MW116B. Selenium was detected in a dissolved ground water sample collected at well MW116B only. This concentration does not exceed the ESV for the ground water-to-sediment pathway protective of benthic organisms. Site ground wa ter is not likely the source of the selenium
concentrations in Site sediments.
SVOC concentrations in the shallow perched groun d water zone were generally higher in the two downgradient monitor wells MW137 and MW116B. Most of the SVOC detections in ground water were near the laboratory reporting limits. 

# 5.3 Nature of Sediment Impacts

The Supplemental RI included the collection of nine sediment samples from eight onsite locations and one offsite location for the analysis of TA L metals, TCL SVOCs, and PAHs. The analytical results indicate that Site sediments are impact ed with low levels of metals and SVOCs.
Metals concentrations in Site sediments were higher at locations A-SD and C-SD. These two
locations are both situated in the northern area of the Site. The Supplemental BERA determined that Selenium was the only metal to exceed an ESV valu e in Site sediments and pose risks to benthic organisms. The selenium exceedences occurred at all eight Site sediment sampling locations.
SVOC concentrations in Site sediments were highest at location A-SD. The SVOC concentrations decreased away from location A-SD toward the s outh and southeast. The SVOC concentrations in
Site sediments were determined to not exceed ESVs. 

# 5.4 Potential Effects on Human Health

The BHHRA ( Appendix E-1 ) was performed to assess whether site-related constituents pose a potential current or future risk to human health if no additional remedial actions are performed at the Site. Potentially complete exposure pathways were concluded to be soil and sediment. Ground water was not evaluated because site ground water is not a potable source of water.
All risks for soil and sediment exposure areas were dete rmined to be within acceptable risk levels and no COCs were identified for receptors through soil or sediment exposure. 

# 5.5 Potential Effects to Ecological Receptors

The Supplemental BERA was performed to assess whether site-related constituents pose a potential risk to ecological receptors if no additional remedi al actions are performed at the Site. Potentially complete exposure pathways were evaluated to asse ss risk to sediment dwelling organisms. SamplingSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 62 OCTOBER 2006 

# of “hot-spots” identified in the FFS was performed to provide updated sediment data for metals and
PAHs in Site sediments.
The Supplemental BERA determined that there were very few exceedences of the conservative ecological screening benchmark values in the updated sediment data. The exceedences that did occur were of low magnitude. Selenium was identified as the primary COC to exceed ESVs in Site sediments ( Appendix E-2 ). The weight of evidence analysis performed for the Supplemental BERA indicated that there was a very low probability of any elevated risk to sediment dwelling organisms from COCs originating from the Site.
A Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) of remedial alternatives was conducted in 2005. The
NEBA concluded that monitored na tural attenuation would be the preferred alternative if sources of
contamination still existed. Since the new 2006 data suggest that concentrations do not pose unacceptable risk to benthic communities and since th e Site is not considered a source of potential risk to these communities the NEBA was not update d. Monitoring may not be necessary based on the current data, and the decision to continue monitoring is at the discretion of the risk managers for the site (the EPA Remedial Project Manager and other stakeholders).SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 63 OCTOBER 2006 

# 6.0 References

CH2M HILL, 1999. Response Action Contract, EPA Region 6, Technical Memorandum, State Marine Superfund Site . March 19, 1999. CH2M HILL, 2005a. Final Focused Feasibility Study Report, State Marine Superfund Site . EPA. September 2005. CH2M HILL, 2005b. Human Health Risk Assessment
, State Marine Superfund Site. EPA. September 2005.
CH2M HILL 2005c. Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
, State Marine Superfund Site. EPA. September 2005. CH2M HILL, 2006a. Field Sampling Plan, Supplemental Remedial Investigation, State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas. Version 1.1. May 2006. CH2M HILL, 2006b. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Supplemental Remedial Investigation, State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas . Version 1.1. May 2006. CH2M HILL, 2006c. Site Management Plan, Supp lemental Remedial Investigation, State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas . Version 1.0. April 2006. Engineer’s Office, City of Port Arthur, 1998. Un titled 24 X 36 topographic map for Pleasure Islet and vicinity overlaid onto post-1974 aerial photograph. 1998. Port Arthur Historical Society, 1997. Port Arthur Centennial History (1898-1998), A Pictorial History of Port Arthur, Texas . Looking Glass Media. 1997-1998. Saez, Louise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas (Saez), 1998. Telephone conversation with P. van Noort. October 13, 1998.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissi on (TNRCC), 1996. Expanded Site Inspection Report, State Marine of Port Arthur. 1997.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissi on (TNRCC), 1997. HRS Documentation Record, State Marine of Port Arthur. 1997. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 1998. Preliminary Assessment/Screening Site Inspection Work Plan. Palmer Barge Line, Inc. March 1998. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Divi sion, Diversity and Habitat Assessment Programs (TPWD), 2001. County Lists of Texas’ Special Species. Jefferson County, 2001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994a. U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA/540/R-94/012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of So lid Waste and Emergency Response. February 1994. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994b . U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA/540/R-94-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of So lid Waste and Emergency Response. February 1994.STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 64 OCTOBER 2006 

# U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994c. U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory ProgramNational Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Multi-Media, MultiConcentration (ILMO1.0) and Low Concentration Water (OLCO1.0). EPA/540/R-94/090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1994. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Ecological Soil, Screening Level Guidance. Draft. Office of Emergency and Reme dial Response. July 10, 2000. Weston Solutions Inc. (Weston), 2000. ESI Report Palmer Barge Line Site, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. Volume I-ESI Report, EPA. January 2000. Weston Solutions Inc. (Weston), 2003. Remedial Investigation Report, State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas . EPA. April 2003.

# Tables

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_TABLE2-1_2006-10.DOC1 OF 3OCTOBER2006TABLE 2-1Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation TasksState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TexasProblem Statement Decision to be MadeInputs to the Decision Decision RuleRemedial InvestigationTasksAnalytesDataLevelSurface Sediment (0 to 15 centimeters) from Sabine LakeConstituents may bepresent in surfacesediment atconcentrations thatpose potentiallyunacceptable risks tobenthic organisms inSabine Lake.Decide whetherbenthic organisms maybe exposed toconstituentconcentrations insurface sediment ofSabine Lake.Conceptual site and exposure modelSurface sediment analytical data(including historical data of sufficientquality)Ecological risk-based screeninglevels for sedimentTRVs (NOECs and LOECs)developed from site-specificbioassaysLeptocheirus plumulosusorNeanthes virenssurvival and growthbioassay resultsqualitative evaluation of habitattaxonomic identificationIf analytical chemistry dataexhibit constituentconcentrations in sedimentthat exceed ecologicalbenchmarks then proceedwith the bioassay analysis.If a weight-of-evidenceanalysis indicates that benthicorganisms from Sabine lakeare exposed to constituentconcentrations that posepotentially unacceptablerisks, this pathway will beaddressed as part of the FS.Within ten defined areaswhere historical dataexceed sediment PRGs,collect sediment samplesbased upon 2-5 grabs foreach area, benthic andepibenthic organisms, andhabitat quality data.Analyze compositesediment samples forSVOCs (including PAHs),TOC, TAL Metals, andgrain size.Collect field analyticalmeasurements of areasurface water wheresediments are collected.PerformLeptocheirusplumulosusorNeanthesvirens10-day bioassays.Computemacroinvertebrate indicesof biological integrity fromtaxonomic identification ofsediment samples sievedand archived forcommunity analysis.Discuss habitat qualityfrom additional field dataand observations.Conduct the baselineecological riskassessment, including aweight-of-evidenceanalysis for communityanalysis.TCL SVOCsTOCTAL MetalsGrain SizeBioassaysTaxonomic ID[Field Readings ofSurface Water]Dissolved oxygenpHTemperatureConductivityTurbidityORPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_TABLE2-1_2006-10.DOC2 OF 3OCTOBER2006TABLE 2-1Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation TasksState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TexasProblem Statement Decision to be MadeInputs to the Decision Decision RuleRemedial InvestigationTasksAnalytesDataLevelSite Ground WaterConstituents potentiallypresent in ground water,resulting from historicalsurface releases or fromsubsurface contaminantsources, may constitutea source ofcontamination tobenthic invertebrates inSabine Lake.Decide whethermodeledconcentrations inground water at theground water sedimentinterface are acting asa source ofcontamination tobenthic invertebratesexposed to constituentin surface sedimentthat pose potentiallyunacceptable risks.Conceptual site and exposure modelground water analytical data.Ecological risk-based screeninglevels for ground water designed tobe protective of benthicinvertebrates.TRVs (NOECs and LOECs)developed from site-specificbioassays.If a weight-of-evidenceanalysis suggests benthicinvertebrates are exposed toconstituent concentrationsthat pose potentiallyunacceptable risks and thatground water is a potentialsource of the contamination,this pathway will beaddressed as part of the FS.Collect ground watersamples from 1 welllocated between formersite operations andSabine Lake. Analyze allsamples for SVOCs(including PAHs), andtotal and dissolved TALmetals.Conduct the baselineecological riskassessment, including aweight-of-evidenceanalysis.TCL SVOCsTAL Metals-TotalTAL MetalsDissolvedIIIIIIIIISubsurface Soil from Wastewater ImpoundmentContaminants may havebeen disposed in theformer impoundmentsDetermine whethercontaminants arepresent in subsurfacesoilsHistorical site use infoSubsurface soil dataIf constituents are detectedabove screening criteria, afurther risk evaluation may berequired.Constituents potentiallypresent in subsurfacesoil of impoundmentsmay constitute a sourceof contamination toground water that flowstoward Sabine Lakeeventually causingadverse effects tobenthic invertebrates inSabine Lake.Decide whethercompounds detectedin the impoundmentsare leaching to groundwater and eventually tosediment.Conceptual site and exposure modelSubsurface soil dataground water analytical dataIf detected compounds in theimpoundment are also foundin ground water, then theimpoundments may be asource of present and futurerisk to benthic organismsexposed to the ground waterand this pathway will beaddressed as part of the FS.Constituents potentiallypresent in subsurfacesoil of impoundmentsmay constitute a sourceof contamination tofuture onsiteconstruction workers.Decide whethercontaminants in theformer impoundmentpose a risk to futureon-site constructionworkers.Conceptual site and exposure modelSubsurface soil dataHuman health risk-based screeninglevelsReceptor-specific exposure factorsChemical-specific toxicological dataIf the risk assessmentindicates potential cancerrisks in the range of 1X 10-4to 1X 10-6or hazard indicesgreater than one then a riskmanagement decision will bemade and the pathway maybe addressed in the FS.Collect subsurface soilsamples from 5 locationsand 3 depths within theimpoundment. Analyze allsamples for SVOCs(including PAHs), and TALmetals.Compare subsurface soiland ground water data.Update original humanhealth risk assessment forthe impoundment.TCL SVOCsTAL MetalsIIIIIISUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_TABLE2-1_2006-10.DOC3 OF 3OCTOBER2006TABLE 2-1Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation TasksState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TexasProblem Statement Decision to be MadeInputs to the Decision Decision RuleRemedial InvestigationTasksAnalytesDataLevelSoil Investigation-Derived WasteConstituents potentiallypresent in soil cuttingsor other soil IDWproduced during fieldactivities may constitutea hazardous waste andrequire special disposalrequirements.Determine whetherconstituentconcentrations in theIDW samples exceedRCRA or LDR limits forclassification ashazardous waste.IDW analytical dataRCRA limitsLDR limitsIf any RCRA constituentconcentration in the soil IDWTCLP leachate exceeds theRCRA limit, the waste will beclassified as hazardous.If the IDW is classified ashazardous, theconcentrations will becompared to LDR numbers toassess disposal options.At the end of all fieldactivities, the IDW will besampled to determine if itqualifies as a hazardous,class 1, class 2, or class 3waste for disposalpurposes. The soil IDWwill be analyzed for the fullTCLP parameters, TPH,and paint filter liquids.Based on the analyticalresults, the IDW will betransported offsite anddisposed of at anappropriate facility.TCLP VOCsTCLP SVOCsTCLP PesticidesTCLP HerbicidesTCLP MetalsTPH (GRO/DRO)Paint FilterIIIIIIIIIIIIILiquid Investigation-Derived WasteConstituents potentiallypresent in purge wateror other liquid IDWproduced during fieldactivities may constitutea hazardous waste andrequire special disposalrequirements.Determine whetherconstituentconcentrations in theIDW samples exceedRCRA or LDR limits forclassification ashazardous waste.IDW analytical dataRCRA limitsLDR limitsIf any RCRA constituentconcentration in the liquidIDW exceeds the RCRA limit,the waste will be classified ashazardous.If the IDW is classified ashazardous, theconcentrations will becompared to LDR numbers toassess disposal options.At the end of all fieldactivities, the IDW will besampled to determine if itqualifies as a hazardous,class 1, class 2, or class 3waste for disposalpurposes. The liquid IDWwill be analyzed for thesame parameters as thesoil IDW except no paintfilter will be performed andthe liquids will beanalyzed as totals (noTCLP leachateperformed).Based on the analyticalresults, the IDW will betransported offsite anddisposed of at anappropriate facility.VOCsSVOCsPesticidesHerbicidesMetalsTPH (GRO/DRO)IIIIIIIIIIIINotes:FS = Feasibility study TAL = CLP Target Analyte List ORP = Oxidation reduction potentialLOEC = Lowest observed effect concentration TCL = CLP Target Compound List TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbonsNOEC = No observed effect concentration SVOCs = Semivolatile organic compounds GRO = Gasoline range organicsTOC = Total organic carbon PAHs = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons DRO = Diesel range organicsSTATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)Table 2-2List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial InvestigationMay - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasType ofInvestigationStationIDSample Location SampleIDDepth(feet bgs)*Date and TimeCollectedMatrixSample TypeAnalysisMethodSoil Boring Samples:Total number of samples =21(including quality control samples)Soil Boring SM136SB01SM136SM136SB01052206 0.5 - 1.7 5/22/06 8:05 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM136SB01SM136SM136SB01052206 0.5 - 1.7 5/22/06 8:05 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM137SB01SM137SM137SB01052306 2 - 4 5/23/06 9:20 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM137SB01SM137SM137SB01052306 2 - 4 5/23/06 9:20 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM137SB02SM137SM137SB02052306 7 - 8 5/23/06 9:25 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM137SB02SM137SM137SB02052306 7 - 8 5/23/06 9:25 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM138SB01SM138SM138SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 11:20 soil normal MS/MSDSW8270CSoil Boring SM138SB01SM138SM138SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 11:20 soil normal MS/MSDSW6010Soil Boring SM138SB02SM138SM138SB02052306 11.5 - 12 5/23/06 12:10 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM138SB02SM138SM138SB02052306 11.5 - 12 5/23/06 12:10 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM138SB03SM138SM138SB03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 12:55 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM138SB03SM138SM138SB03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 12:55 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM138SB03SM138SM138FD03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 13:00 soil quality control field duplicateSW8270CSoil Boring SM138SB03SM138SM138FD03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 13:00 soil quality control field duplicateSW6010Soil Boring SM139SB01SM139SM139SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 14:05 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM139SB01SM139SM139SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 14:05 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM139SB02SM139SM139SB02052306 5 - 6 5/23/06 14:25 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM139SB02SM139SM139SB02052306 5 - 6 5/23/06 14:25 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM139SB03SM139SM139SB03052306 6 - 8 5/23/06 14:40 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM139SB03SM139SM139SB03052306 6 - 8 5/23/06 14:40 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM140SB01SM140SM140SB01052306 0.5 - 2 5/23/06 15:20 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM140SB01SM140SM140SB01052306 0.5 - 2 5/23/06 15:20 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM140SB02SM140SM140SB02052306 7.5 - 8 5/23/06 15:40 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM140SB02SM140SM140SB02052306 7.5 - 8 5/23/06 15:40 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM140SB03SM140SM140SB03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:35 soil normal MS/MSDSW8270CSoil Boring SM140SB03SM140SM140SB03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:35 soil normal MS/MSDSW6010Soil Boring SM140SB03SM140SM140FD03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:40 soil quality control field duplicateSW8270CSoil Boring SM140SB03SM140SM140FD03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:40 soil quality control field duplicateSW6010Soil Boring SM141SB01SM141SM141SB01052406 0 - 2 5/24/06 7:50 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM141SB01SM141SM141SB01052406 0 - 2 5/24/06 7:50 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM141SB02SM141SM141SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 8:15 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM141SB02SM141SM141SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 8:15 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM141SB03SM141SM141SB03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM141SB03SM141SM141SB03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM141SB03SM141SM141FD03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil quality control field duplicateSW8270CSoil Boring SM141SB03SM141SM141FD03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil quality control field duplicateSW6010Soil Boring SM142SB01SM142SM142SB01052406 0 - 1 5/24/06 9:20 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM142SB01SM142SM142SB01052406 0 - 1 5/24/06 9:20 soil normalSW6010Soil Boring SM142SB02SM142SM142SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 9:45 soil normalSW8270CSoil Boring SM142SB02SM142SM142SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 9:45 soil normalSW6010Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xlsPAGE 1 OF 5OCTOBER 2006Table 2-2List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial InvestigationMay - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasType ofInvestigationStationIDSample Location SampleIDDepth(feet bgs)*Date and TimeCollectedMatrixSample TypeAnalysisMethodSoil Boring SM138EB01SM138SM138EB01052306 NA 5/23/06 13:40 water quality control equipment blankSW8270CSoil Boring SM138EB01 SM138 SM138EB01052306 NA 5/23/06 13:40 water quality control equipment blank SW6010Ground water investigation: Total number of samples =6(including quality control samples)ground water MW136GW01MW136MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normalSW8270Cground water MW136GW01MW136MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normalSW8270C-SIMground water MW136GW01MW136MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normalSW6010 (total)ground water MW136GW01MW136MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normalSW6010 (dissolved)ground water MW136GW01MW136MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW8270Cground water MW136GW01MW136MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW8270C-SIMground water MW136GW01MW136MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW6010 (total)ground water MW136GW01MW136MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW6010 (dissolved)ground water MW136GW01MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW8270Cground water MW136GW01MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW8270C-SIMground water MW136GW01MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW6010 (total)ground water MW136GW01MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSDSW6010 (dissolved)ground water MW137GW01MW137MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normalSW8270Cground water MW137GW01MW137MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normalSW8270C-SIMground water MW137GW01MW137MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normalSW6010 (total)ground water MW137GW01MW137MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normalSW6010 (dissolved)ground water MW137GW01MW137MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicateSW8270Cground water MW137GW01MW137MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicateSW8270C-SIMground water MW137GW01MW137MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicateSW6010 (total)ground water MW137GW01MW137MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicate SW6010 (dissolved)ground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normalSW8270Cground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normalSW8270C-SIMground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normalSW6010 (total)ground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normalSW6010 (dissolved)Sediment investigation:Total number of samples =3(including quality control samples)SedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalSW6010SedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalSW9060SedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalASTM D422SedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentAAA-SD-018 - 96/8/06 11:00Sediment normalBioassaySedimentBBB-SD-018 - 96/8/06 12:05Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentBBB-SD-018 - 9Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSedimentBBB-SD-018 - 96/8/06 12:05Sediment normalSW6010SedimentBBB-SD-018 - 96/8/06 12:05Sediment normalSW9060SedimentBBB-SD-018 - 96/8/06 12:05Sediment normalASTM D422Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xlsPAGE 2 OF 5OCTOBER 2006Table 2-2List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial InvestigationMay - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasType ofInvestigationStationIDSample Location SampleIDDepth(feet bgs)*Date and TimeCollectedMatrixSample TypeAnalysisMethodSedimentBBB-SD-018 - 96/8/06 12:05Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentBBB-SD-018 - 96/8/06 12:05Sediment normalBioassaySedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalSW6010SedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalSW9060SedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalASTM D422SedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentCCC-SD-01156/8/06 15:30Sediment normalBioassaySedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalSW6010SedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalSW9060SedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalASTM D422SedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentDDD-SD-01106/8/06 16:40Sediment normalBioassaySedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalSW6010SedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalSW9060SedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalASTM D422SedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentEEE-SD-013 - 46/8/06 14:20Sediment normalBioassaySedimentFFF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentFFF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSediment F FF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalSW6010Sediment F FF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalSW9060SedimentFFF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalASTM D422Sediment F FF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentFFF-SD-0186/8/06 17:25Sediment normalBioassaySedimentGGG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentGGG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSediment G GG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalSW6010Sediment G GG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalSW9060SedimentGGG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalASTM D422Sediment G GG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xlsPAGE 3 OF 5OCTOBER 2006Table 2-2List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial InvestigationMay - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasType ofInvestigationStationIDSample Location SampleIDDepth(feet bgs)*Date and TimeCollectedMatrixSample TypeAnalysisMethodSedimentGGG-SD-018 - 106/9/06 10:50Sediment normalBioassaySedimentHHH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentHHH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSediment H HH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalSW6010Sediment H HH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalSW9060SedimentHHH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalASTM D422Sediment H HH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentHHH-SD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment normalBioassaySedimentIII-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalSW8270CSedimentIII-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalSW8270C-SIMSediment I II-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalSW6010Sediment I II-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalSW9060SedimentIII-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalASTM D422Sediment I II-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalBenthic Invertebrate TaxonomicIdentificationSedimentIII-SD-0126/9/06 11:45Sediment normalBioassaySedimentFDHFD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment quality control field duplicateSW8270CSedimentFDHFD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment quality control field duplicateSW8270C-SIMSedimentFDHFD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment quality control field duplicateSW6010SedimentFDHFD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment quality control field duplicateSW9060SedimentFDHFD-0146/9/06 10:15Sediment quality control field duplicateASTM D422SedimentCCMS/MSD15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSDSW8270CSedimentCCMS/MSD15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSDSW8270C-SIMSedimentCCMS/MSD15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSDSW6010SedimentCCMS/MSD15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSDSW9060SedimentCCMS/MSD15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSDASTM D422Investigation-derived waste sampling for disposal:total number of samples = 2IDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/7470IDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/8015-EIDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/6010IDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW8015-PIDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/8270CIDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/8260BIDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/8081AIDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalSW1311/8051AIDWIWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB010524065/24/06 13:50 solid waste normalEPA 9095AIDWIWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW010531065/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normalSW1311/7470IDWIWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW010531065/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normalSW1311/8015-EIDWIWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW010531065/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normalSW1311/6010IDWIWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW010531065/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normalSW8015-PIDWIWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW010531065/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normalSW1311/8270CSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xlsPAGE 4 OF 5OCTOBER 2006Table 2-2List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial InvestigationMay - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasType ofInvestigationStationIDSample Location SampleIDDepth(feet bgs)*Date and TimeCollectedMatrixSample TypeAnalysisMethodIDWIWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW010531065/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normalSW1311/8260BIDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal SW1311/8081AIDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal SW1311/8051ANotes:Analysis Methods:SW7470 - MercurySW8015-E - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel Range OrganicsSW6010 - MetalsSW8015-P - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Gasoline Range OrganicsSW8270C - Semivolatile Organic CompoundsSW8260B - VOCsSW8270C-SIM - PAHs single ion monitoringSW8081A - PesticidesSW8051A - HerbicidesSW1311 - Toxicity Characteristic Leaching ProcedureEPA 9095A - paint filter liquidsSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xlsPAGE 5 OF 5OCTOBER 2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)

### Table 2-3 Monitor Well and Soil Boring Location Coordinates and Completion Details State Marine Superfund Site Port Arthur, Texas

Monitor Wells

Monitor Well ID Northing Easting Reference Elevation (ft MSL) Ground Surface Elevation (ft MSL) Total Depth (ft BTOC) Depth of Screened Interval (ft bgs) Elevation of Screened Interval (ft MSL)
MW-061A 13932253.35 3595376.96 7.99 5.82 43.08 18 - 43 -12.18 - -37.18 MW-061B 13932253.35 3595376.96 7.97 5.82 26.98 5 - 25 0.82 - -19.18 MW-068A 13932451.58 3595178.31 12.45 10.39 44.88 20 - 45 -9.61 - -34.61 MW-068B 13932451.58 3595178.31 12.62 10.42 23.30 5 - 20 5.42 - -9.61 MW-116A 13932782.17 3595749.92 6.97 4.51 40.80 20 - 40 -15.49 - -35.49 MW-116B 13932782.17 3595749.92 6.97 4.51 27.30 5 - 25 -0.49 - -20.49 MW-136 13933017.70 3595694.50 9.58 6.72 22.93 10 - 20 -3.28 - -13.28 MW-137 13932827.90 3595615.90 10.05 7.04 23.20 10 - 20 -2.96 - -12.96 Soil Borings
Soil Boring ID Northing Easting Ground Surface Elevation (ft MSL) Total Depth (ft bgs)
SB138 13933144.87 3595454.50 9.00 22 SB139 13933089.95 3595544.64 5.41 12 SB140 13933043.50 3595495.19 4.16 22 SB141 13932931.96 3595387.47 10.53 8 SB142 13932872.67 3595480.78 7.02 6 Sediment Sample Locations

Sediment Sample Area Location Number Northing Easting

A 1 13933019.62 3596068.42 B 1 1392682.96 3595978.71 2 13932780.78 3595981.93 3 13932749.24 3596065.51 4 13932659.45 3596119.64 5 13932064.90 3596032.39 C 1 13932522.25 3596172.48 2 13932545.48 3596132.52 D 1 13932405.38 3596033.55 2 13932369.63 3596043.46 3 13932510.63 3596027.66 4 13932323.48 3596070.21 5 13932411.03 3596005.54 E 1 13932395.72 3595840.66 2 13932254.59 3595802.03 3 13932285.48 3595728.84 4 13932330.43 3595584.06 5 13932229.59 3595715.87 F 1 13932150.07 3595913.67 2 13932000.13 3595835.43 G 1 13931942.40 3595660.49 2 13931911.75 359667.62 H 1 13932049.97 3595517.33 2 13932084.38 3595466.32 3 13932012.08 3595016.67 4 13931986.92 3595436.61 I (reference) 1 13938347.76 3605370.79

Notes: Northing and Easting coordinates are State Plane, Texas South Central Zone, North American Datum of 1983 Elevations are relative to the North American Vertical Datum, 1988 ft - feet MSL - Mean Sea Level bgs - below ground surface BTOC - Below Top of Casing

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-3_2006-10.xls PAGE 1 OF 1 OCTOBER 2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)

### Table 2-4 Water Level Data - May 200 6 

### State Marine Superfund Site Port Arthur, Texas

Well ID Date Collected Re f 

### erence Elevation (ft MSL) Depth to Water (ft BTOC) Water Level Elevation (ft MSL) MW-061A 05/31/06 8.14 6.65 1.49 MW-061B 05/31/06 8.13 6.49 1.64 MW-068A 05/31/06 12.73 NM

--- MW-068B 05/31/06 12.77 5.48 7.29 MW-116A 05/31/06 7.38 5.61 1.77 MW-116B 05/31/06 7.38 5.14 2.24 MW-136 05/31/06 9.58 6.06 3.52 MW-137 05/31/06 10.05 7.28 2.77

Notes: 

### ft - feet MSL - mean sea level BTOC - below top of casing NM - water level not measured in MW-068A. Water level meter provided false water level indications from water along the side of the well casing.

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-4_2006- 10 .xls\Table 2-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 OCTOBER 2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)Table 3-1Detections of Metals in SoilSamples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :SM136SM137SM137SM138SM138SM138SM138SM139SM139SM139Sample ID :SM136SB01052206 SM137SB01052306 SM137SB02052306 SM138SB01052306 SM138SB02052306 SM138SB03052306 SM138FD03052306 SM139SB01052306 SM139SB02052306 SM139SB03052306Date Collected :5/22/06 8:05 5/23/06 9:20 5/23/06 9:25 5/23/06 11:20 5/23/06 12:10 5/23/06 12:55 5/23/06 13:00 5/23/06 14:05 5/23/06 14:25 5/23/06 14:40Sample Type :N N N N N NFDN N NMatrix :SSSBSBSSSBSBSBSSSBSBUpper Depth :0.527011.52020056Lower Depth :1.7482122222268Reference Sample ID :SM138SB03052306Aluminummg/kg20000 = 8770 = 6030 = 11200 = 5680 = 10600 = 12500 = 13700 = 13800 = 18100 =Antimonymg/kg4.73 J1.97 J0.433 U1.84 JL0.616 U0.491 U0.551 U4.39 U6.88 J0.55 UArsenicmg/kg13.3 =5.05 =9.71 =5.33 =2.64 =4.58 =4.12 =12.2 =14.3 =8.98 =Bariummg/kg540 =137 =43.3 =301 J108 =49.9 J74 J163 =379 =96.8 =Beryllium mg/kg0.367 J 0.526 = 0.138 J 0.625 = 0.18 J 0.646 = 0.686 = 0.702 J 0.358 J 1.08 =Calcium mg/kg79000 =21800 =5230 =33000 J22600 =1760 J4890 J15900 =24900 =4650 =Cadmiummg/kg7.24 =0.959 =4.33 U0.118 =0.304 =0.0491 U0.0551 U0.913 =7.77 =0.055 UChromiummg/kg55 =25 =34.9 =14.1 =9.3 =11.2 =13.2 =32.1 =61.2 =17.7 =Cobaltmg/kg16.9 =4.21 =15.4 =4.79 =2.61 =7.48 =6.6 =11 =16.6 =14.1 =Coppermg/kg373 =57.2 =117 =41.6 =30.8 =4.23 =7.46 =115 =547 =11.3 =Ironmg/kg103000 =15100 =329000 =16300 =17900 =12600 =13700 =74500 =134000 =18000 =Potassiummg/kg1880 =1190 =612 =1460 =718 =1760 =1960 =1280 =1340 =3110 =Mercurymg/kg0.134 J0.127 J0.467 =0.0901 J0.0267 J0.03 J0.0253 J0.214 J0.0429 J0.128 JMagnesiummg/kg8150 =2380 =953 =2010 =1070 =2490 =2670 =1950 =2450 =3150 =Manganesemg/kg534 =188 =1350 =134 J119 =195 =167 =485 =693 =94.9 =Sodiummg/kg1230 =271 =424 =132 =244 =1380 =1450 =246 =891 =498 =Nickelmg/kg43.8 =16.4 =15.3 =11.4 J3.02 =9 =8.93 =23 =34.6 =21.1 =Leadmg/kg574 =118 =641 =59.7 J129 =9.68 J23.7 J264 =718 =18.1 =Seleniummg/kg4.68 J1.99 =217 U0.444 U3.08 U2.46 U2.76 U21.9 U23 U5.5 USilvermg/kg5.23 =0.991 =7.01 =0.794 =0.851 =0.46 J0.611 =2.31 J5.71 =0.689 =Vanadiummg/kg29.9 =18.6 =24.1 =21.3 JH10.9 =21.9 =23.7 =30.5 =23.4 =33 =Zincmg/kg4140 = 603 = 1440 = 287 J 285 = 37.8 J 60 J 563 = 1500 = 72.6 =Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSS - surface soil sampleSB - subsurface soil sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported concentration is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased highUnitAnalyteSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-1_2006-10.xlsTable 3-1Page 1 of 2OCTOBER2006Table 3-1Detections of Metals in SoilSamples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :Sample ID :Date Collected :Sample Type :Matrix :Upper Depth :Lower Depth :Reference Sample ID :Aluminummg/kgAntimonymg/kgArsenicmg/kgBariummg/kgBerylliummg/kgCalciummg/kgCadmiummg/kgChromiummg/kgCobaltmg/kgCoppermg/kgIronmg/kgPotassiummg/kgMercurymg/kgMagnesiummg/kgManganesemg/kgSodiummg/kgNickelmg/kgLeadmg/kgSeleniummg/kgSilvermg/kgVanadiummg/kgZincmg/kgUnitAnalyteSM140SM140SM140SM140SM141SM141SM141SM141SM142SM142SM140SB01052306 SM140SB02052306 SM140SB03052306 SM140FD03052306 SM141SB01052406 SM141SB02052406 SM141SB03052406 SM141FD03052406 SM142SB01052406 SM142SB020524065/23/06 15:20 5/23/06 15:40 5/23/06 16:35 5/23/06 16:40 5/24/06 7:50 5/24/06 8:15 5/24/06 8:25 5/24/06 8:25 5/24/06 9:20 5/24/06 9:45N N NFDN N NFDN NSSSBSBSBSSSBSBSBSSSB0.57.521.521.5056.56.5052 822 222 6 8 8 2 6SM140SB03052306SM141SB0305240611200 =14100 =9290 =9850 =12600 =14700 =19700 =16200 =10800 =11400 =3.19 J2.7 J0.626 UJ0.539 U0.504 J3.39 J0.64 U0.493 U4.1 J11.7 J5 =6.15 =5.05 =6.26 =3.99 =5.45 =8.55 =12.8 =8.4 =5.56 =125 =168 =59.6 JH52.5 =72.1 =319 =92.9 =89 =135 =312 =0.61 =0.721 =0.611 J0.661 =0.559 =0.571 =1.03 =0.904 =0.646 J0.319 J9040 =6620 =4250 J2330 J11100 =21300 =4510 =3630 =14500 =10300 =0.554 =0.589 =1.13 JL0.635 J0.358 =2.58 =0.064 U0.0493 U0.387 J0.807 =18.7 =20.9 J12.3 JH12.3 =17.5 =45.9 =17.6 =13.5 =24.5 =81.1 =5.24 =6.64 J7.36 J7.1 J5.48 =13.4 =5.22 =4.1 =9.91 =9.11 =76.8 =74.2 =14.5 =11.7 =64.7 =291 =13.4 =14.8 =168 =526 =23000 =28400 =22400 J14100 J24100 =126000 =21500 =13400 =52600 =57400 =1550 =2220 =1670 JH1910 =1560 =2140 =2060 =1830 =1460 =892 =0.18 J0.121 J0.532 J0.0871 J0.0572 J0.207 J0.0303 J0.0398 J0.0678 J1.04 =1900 =2180 =2630 =2900 =1660 =2400 =2490 =2080 =2280 =1430 =158 =191 J181 =193 =200 =590 =386 =130 =299 J282 =619 =1860 =1590 =1770 =642 =1290 =1310 =1180 =1490 =1270 =13.5 =14.9 =9.45 =10.3 =12 =14.5 =8.66 =7.25 =25.8 =26 =180 =120 J75.6 J42.5 J132 =951 =25.6 =25 =171 =589 =4.45 U2.56 U2.69 U4.8 U22 U3.2 U0.987 U10.9 U7.41 U1.51 =1.35 =1.13 =0.703 =1.88 =13.9 =0.706 =0.328 J2.42 =2.86 =22.3 =25.1 =20.1 JH20.8 =19.9 =23.9 =35.6 =26.5 =21.9 =17 =279 =293 =74.3 =59.2 =178 =2910 =56.1 =44 =377 =1040 =Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSS - surface soil sampleSB - subsurface soil sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported concentration is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased highSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-1_2006-10.xlsTable 3-1Page 2 of 2OCTOBER2006Table 3-2Detections of Semivolatile OrganicCompounds in Soil Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :SM138 SM138 SM138 SM140 SM140 SM140 SM141 SM142 SM142Sample ID :SM138SB02052306 SM138SB03052306 SM138FD03052306 SM140SB02052306 SM140SB03052306 SM140FD03052306 SM141SB02052406 SM142SB01052406 SM142SB02052406Date Collected :5/23/06 12:10 5/23/06 12:55 5/23/06 13:00 5/23/06 15:40 5/23/06 16:35 5/23/06 16:40 5/24/06 8:15 5/24/06 9:20 5/24/06 9:45Sample Type :N N FD N N FD N N NMatrix :SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SS SBUpper Depth :11.5 20 20 7.5 21.5 21.5 5 0 5Lower Depth :12 22 22 8 22 22 6 2 6Reference Sample ID :SM138SB03052306 SM140SB030523062,4-Dimethylphenol ug/kg 1420 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U 1800 U8020 =2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U2170 J127 U 124 U 113 U 1800 U9020 =Acenaphthene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U1480 J127 U 124 U 113 U 1800 U4410 JAcenaphthylene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U5830 =3580 UAnthracene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U6290 =127 U124 U113 U19000 =6390 JBenzo (a) anthraceneug/kg725 U116 U115 U2050 J127 U124 U113 U10800 =5390 JBenzo (a) pyreneug/kg725 U116 U115 U1470 J127 U124 U113 U10800 =3750 JBenzo (b) fluorantheneug/kg725 U116 U115 U1640 J127 U124 U113 U15100 =4990 JBenzo (g,h,i) peryleneug/kg725 U116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U7320 =3580 UBenzo(k)fluorantheneug/kg725 U116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U4330 =3580 UBis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ug/kg17200 =491 J998 J1920 J138 J491 J120 J1800 U79200 =Butyl benzylphthalateug/kg840 J116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U1800 U26200 =Carbazoleug/kg725 U116 U115 U1520 J127 U124 U113 U9720 =3870 JChryseneug/kg725 U116 U115 U4170 =127 U124 U113 U15500 =5240 Jcresols, m & pug/kg1420 U116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U1800 U11400 =Di-n-butylphthalateug/kg725 U116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U1800 U33200 =Dibenzofuranug/kg725 U116 U115 U1260 J127 U124 U113 U1800 U4130 JFluorantheneug/kg725 U116 U115 U5460 =127 U124 U113 U18300 =12800 =Fluoreneug/kg725 U116 U115 U2760 =127 U124 U113 U3440 J6190 JIndeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene ug/kg725 U116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U4810 =3580 UNaphthaleneug/kg725 U116 U115 U2170 J127 U124 U113 U2360 J33900 =Phenanthreneug/kg725 U116 U115 U10600 =127 U124 U113 U16100 =19500 =Phenolug/kg1420 U116 U115 U1110 U127 U124 U113 U1800 U6510 JPyreneug/kg725 U116 U115 U6300 =127 U124 U113 U13700 =9400 =Notes:ug/kg - micrograms per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSS - surface soil sampleSB - subsurface soil sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitUnitAnalyteSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-2_2006-10.xlsTable 3-2Page 1 of 1OCTOBER2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)Table 3-3Detections of Metals in Ground Water Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :Sample ID :Date Collected :Sample Type :Matrix :Reference Sample ID :TotalDissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total DissolvedAluminum UG/L 82.3 U 52.4 U12500 =43.8 U866 J42.2 U4790 J62.3 UArsenic UG/L12.7 JH9.32 U22.3 JH 14.1 JH 22.7 JH7.38 U17.2 JH7.38 UBarium UG/L555 = 543 = 1220 = 1250 = 573 = 557 = 517 = 579 =Beryllium UG/L 0.0635 U 0.0635 U0.684 J0.0635 U0.0635 U0.0635 U0.58 J0.0635 UCalcium UG/L201000 =203000 =198000 =189000 =137000 =146000 =129000 =163000 =Cadmium UG/L0.351 U0.351 U1.22 J0.447 J0.351 U0.365 J0.457 J0.714 JChromium UG/L3.97 J0.842 U14.5 =0.842 U0.842 U0.842 U5.09 J0.842 UCobalt UG/L0.332 U0.332 U5.87 J1.65 J4.94 J4.91 J7.95 J4.79 JCopper UG/L2.27 U2.27 U31.4 =2.27 U2.27 U2.35 J16.7 J5.1 JIronUG/L2030 =981 =35800 =27800 =1500 J752 =5910 J996 =Potassium UG/L39500 J39200 J63400 J60400 J65400 J59100 J64000 J54300 JMercury UG/L 0.0347 U0.0347 U0.0455 J0.0347 U0.0347 U0.0347 U0.0355 J0.0347 UMagnesium UG/L101000 =93700 =317000 =300000 =230000 =239000 =211000 =257000 =Manganese UG/L1400 =1310 =8390 =7680 =5510 =6350 =5290 =7230 =Sodium UG/L591000 =521000 =1720000 J1550000 J1420000 =1290000 =1390000 =1290000 =NickelUG/L164 =170 =13.6 J7.41 J14 J14.6 J20 J14.5 JLeadUG/L2.26 J2.49 J71 =1.52 U2.47 J1.52 U18.5 J2.37 JSelenium UG/L8.77 U9.41 J8.77 U8.77 U8.77 U8.77 U8.77 U8.77 UVanadium UG/L1.87 J1.69 J24.6 J0.71 U7.73 J4.59 J16.7 J5.2 JZincUG/L48.1 =36.2 =258 =34.8 =70.9 J72.8 =135 J72 =Notes:UG/L - micrograms per literN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateWG = groundwater sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported concentration is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased highUnitAnalyteWGMW116BMW116BGW010531065/31/06 13:30NWGMW136MW136GW010531065/31/06 20:25NWGMW137MW137GW01053106N05/31/2006 19:50MW137GW01053106FDGWMW137MW137FD010531065/31/06 19:50Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-3_2006-10.xlsTable 3-3Page 1 of 1OCTOBER2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)Table 3-4Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :MW116B MW136 MW137 MW137Sample ID :MW116BGW01053106 MW136GW01053106 MW137GW01053106 MW137FD01053106Date Collected :5/31/06 13:30 5/31/06 20:25 5/31/06 19:50 5/31/06 19:50Sample Type :N N N FDMatrix :WG WG WG WGReference Sample ID :MW137GW01053106DiethylphthalateUG/L1.83 J2.82 J2.21 J4.28 JAcenaphtheneUG/L1.12 =0.0114 J0.028 =0.0265 JAcenaphthylene UG/L0.0408 =0.00121 U 0.00118 U 0.00126 UAnthracene UG/L0.0199 J0.00119 U0.0042 J 0.0059 JBenzo(a)anthracene UG/L0.0078 J 0.0032 J 0.0021 J 0.0035 JBenzo(a)pyrene UG/L 0.00136 U0.0028 J 0.0037 J 0.003 JBenzo(b)fluoroanthene UG/L 0.00142 U0.0034 J0.00133 U0.0036 JBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneUG/L0.0016 U0.0018 J0.0015 U0.0027 JBenzo(k)fluorantheneUG/L 0.00149 U0.0015 J0.0037 J0.00149 UChryseneUG/L0.0046 J0.0033 J0.00168 U0.0035 JFluorantheneUG/L0.532 =0.0101 J0.0044 J0.0124 JFluoreneUG/L0.0573 =0.004 J0.0108 J0.0111 JIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene UG/L 0.00124 U0.0018 J0.00116 U0.0027 JNaphthaleneUG/L0.0142 J0.0085 J0.0247 J0.023 JPhenanthreneUG/L0.0063 J0.0102 J0.0119 J0.0161 JPyreneUG/L0.297 =0.0101 J0.0079 J0.0154 JNotes:UG/L - micrograms per literN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateWG - groundwater sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitUnitAnalyteSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-4_2006-10.xlsTable 3-4Page 1 of 1OCTOBER2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)Table 3-5Detections of Metals in Sediment Samples - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :A-SDB-SD C-SD D-SD E-SD F-SD G-SD H-SD H-SD I-SDSample ID :A-SD-01 B-SD-02 C-SD-03 D-SD-04 E-SD-05 F-SD-06 G-SD-07 H-SD-08 FD-01FD I-SD-09Date Collected :6/8/06 11:00 6/8/06 12:05 6/8/06 15:30 6/8/06 16:40 6/8/06 14:20 6/8/06 17:25 6/9/06 10:50 6/9/06 10:15 6/9/06 10:15 6/9/06 11:45Sample Type :NNNNNNNNFDNMatrix :SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDReference Sample ID :H-SD-08AnalyteUnitAluminummg/kg13000 = 9130 = 15500 = 16200 = 4360 = 4040 = 11400 = 11000 = 10200 = 752 =Antimonymg/kg 0.0947 U0.121 J 0.237 JL0.0801 U 0.0634 U 0.0653 U 0.0963 U 0.0883 U 0.0883 U 0.0629 UArsenicmg/kg6 =4.5 = 5.73 = 5.29 = 4.12 = 3.59 = 5.32 = 4.19 = 5.03 = 1.23 =Bariummg/kg191 =135 = 264 = 43.5 = 27.7 = 44.4 = 36.6 = 37.8 = 40.4 = 5.53 =Berylliummg/kg0.737 = 0.527 J 0.768 J 0.826 = 0.284 J 0.266 J 0.747 = 0.625 J 0.625 J 0.0698 JCalciummg/kg2820 = 1430 = 2560 = 938 = 1040 = 556 = 1670 = 1440 = 1480 = 149 =Cadmiummg/kg0.108 J 0.0913 J 0.1 J 0.0846 J 0.0989 J0.0508 U0.133 = 0.158 = 0.131 =0.0466 UChromiummg/kg15.1 = 11.6 = 16.6 = 17.3 = 6.32 = 6.7 = 12.7 = 12 = 11.3 = 1.42 =Cobaltmg/kg6.37 = 4.78 = 6.7 = 5.58 = 3.18 = 3.13 = 4.37 = 6.09 = 7.01 = 1.07 =Coppermg/kg15.2 = 7.82 = 8.62 = 6.04 = 18.3 = 7.39 = 8.85 = 5.24 = 5.64 =0.466 UIronmg/kg16700 B 12600 B 17100 B 14100 B 11100 B 9840 B 12600 B 15000 B 14300 B 2320 BPotassiummg/kg2880 = 2010 = 3200 JH 2970 = 717 = 793 = 2190 = 2030 = 1940 = 179 =Mercurymg/kg0.0396 J 0.0288 J 0.0405 J 0.0201 J 0.0376 J 0.0232 J 0.0215 J 0.0215 J 0.0246 J0.0125 UMagnesiummg/kg4230 = 2820 = 4620 = 3510 = 1050 = 1150 = 3430 = 2930 = 2840 = 286 =Manganesemg/kg297 =173 = 405 = 65.7 = 127 = 123 = 165 = 138 = 149 = 22.1 =Sodiummg/kg5250 = 3320 = 7290 = 3940 = 1610 = 2050 = 4720 = 3810 = 3590 = 1050 =Nickelmg/kg12.4 = 8.59 = 12.2 = 11.3 = 8.07 = 5.38 = 10.6 = 9.15 = 9.37 = 0.876 JLeadmg/kg18.7 = 15.8 = 15.7 = 11.5 = 15.8 = 10.9 = 12.5 = 12.1 = 13 = 2.28 JSeleniummg/kg4.66 = 3.15 = 3.69 = 2.22 = 3.85 = 2.41 = 2.96 = 3.87 = 3.63 = 0.549 JSilvermg/kg 0.346 U 0.287 U 0.391 U 0.288 U 0.255 U0.263 J0.328 U 0.315 U 0.315 U 0.233 UThalliummg/kg0.28 = 0.0752 = 0.0966 = 0.0826 = 0.0347 = 0.0436 = 0.0837 = 0.0851 = 0.0806 =0.0126 UVanadiummg/kg25.5 = 18.8 = 30.2 JH 26.5 = 9.89 = 10.5 = 23.7 = 21.8 = 20.6 = 3.07 =Zincmg/kg94.7 = 63.2 = 59.7 = 44.4 = 71.2 = 27.2 = 36.8 = 84.1 = 66 = 5.07 =Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSD - sedimentYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitB: Analyte was detected in associated method blank sampleJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased highSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-5_2006-10.xlsTable 3-5Page 1 of 1OCTOBER2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)Table 3-6Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Sediment Samples - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, TexasStation ID :A-SDB-SD C-SD D-SD E-SD F-SD G-SD H-SD H-SD I-SDSample ID :A-SD-01 B-SD-02 C-SD-03 D-SD-04 E-SD-05 F-SD-06 G-SD-07 H-SD-08 FD-01FD I-SD-09Date Collected :6/8/06 11:00 6/8/06 12:05 6/8/06 15:30 6/8/06 16:40 6/8/06 14:20 6/8/06 17:25 6/9/06 10:50 6/9/06 10:15 6/9/06 10:15 6/9/06 11:45Sample Type :N N N N N N N NFD NMatrix :SDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDReference Sample ID :H-SD-08Parameter Name Unit2-Methylnaphthaleneug/kg 29.4 U 9.85 U 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U17.9 =5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UAnthraceneug/kg 29.4 U10 J5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 8.11 U 5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UBenzo (a) anthracene ug/kg56 J20.3 = 8.23 J 10.8 J 25 J 12.6 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UBenzo (a) pyreneug/kg54.8 J 20.4 = 9.2 J 12.3 J19.6 U11.7 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UBenzo (b) fluoranthene ug/kg143 =26.3 = 10.5 J 15.7 J19.6 U13.7 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UBenzo (g,h,i) perylene ug/kg 29.4 U16.6 J5.96 U9.92 J19.6 U9.06 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UBenzo(k)fluoranthene ug/kg29.8 J9.85 U 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 8.11 U 5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UChryseneug/kg82.6 = 29.6 = 8.09 J 11.8 J 19.9 J 10.6 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UFluorantheneug/kg170 =33.5 = 11 J 12.8 J 47.4 = 14.8 J 5.73 J5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UIndeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene ug/kg 29.4 U10.9 J5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 8.11 U 5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UNaphthaleneug/kg 29.4 U 9.85 U 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U10.6 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UPhenanthreneug/kg58.9 = 13.7 J 9.67 J9.47 U23.4 J 8.76 J5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UPyreneug/kg104 =44.2 = 14.4 = 19.8 = 49 = 33.7 =5.67 U 5.19 U 5.17 U 3.77 UNotes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSD - sedimentData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitB: Analyte was detected in associated method blank sampleJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased highSupplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-6_2006-10.xlsTable 3-6Page 1 of 1OCTOBER2006STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT VERSION 1.1

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

# (This page intentionally left blank)

# Figures

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## Project Location

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\FIG_1-1.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100 SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 1-1 Site Location Map LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 Streets Property Boundary 

### PROJECT LOCATION Austin Dallas

Houston Fort Worth

San Antonio 

# PROJECT LOCATION



# Port Arthur

* Image Data: Provided by Aerial Viewpoint Date Flown: 2000

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## PALMER BARGE SITE

STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

TAR BURN AREA FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

MAINTENCE SHED AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF THE FORMER LAUREN REFINING CO. TANK FARM CURRENT ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK AREA

FORMER OFFICE BUILDING DISTILLATION COLUMN SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\2006\FIG_1-2.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 1-2 2000 Aerial Photograph Current Site Features Map 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 8/01/2005 SDaigle Area of Interest Landfill Area Property Boundary Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area * Image Data: Provided by Aerial Viewpoint Date Flown: 2000

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

SABI NE-NE

CHES

NA V IG A TI O N CHANNEL

SABI NE-NE

CHES

NA V IG A TI O N CHANNEL

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Figure1-3.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 1-3 2005 Aerial Photograph Current Site Features Map 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 8/01/2006 Property Boundary Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

* Image Data: Provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Map Projection is NAD 83 State Plane (feet) South Central TX. Date Flown: 2005

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! (

! ( ! ( !

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

! 

## @ A

@ A 

## FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

B

- SD

C-SD

D-SD

F- S D

G-SD H-SD E

- SD A

- SD

SABI NE-NE

CHES

NA V IG A TI O N CHANNEL

SABI NE-NE

CHES

NA V IG A TI O N CHANNEL M W 137 M W 136

S M14 1

S M14 2 S M14 0 S M13 9 S M13 8

M W 1 1 6B M W 1 1 6A

M W 068B M W 068A

M W 061B M W 061A

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\SamplesLocations.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 2-1 Sample Location Map 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/10/2006 Property Boundary Soil Boring Locations 

## ! (

Deep Nested Monitor Well Shallow Nested Monitor Well New Shallow Monitor Well Locations 

## @ A
Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area



## ! (

MW061 A 

## ! (

MW061 B Location of Grab Sample for Composite Sediment Sample

* Image Data: Provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Map Projection is NAD 83 State Plane (feet) South Central TX. Date Flown: 2005

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## @ A @ A @ A @ A

@ A 

## FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

3 . 0

2 . 0

5

. 0 6

. 0

7

. 0 4 . 0 M W 137 2 .77 

### MW136 3.52

MW116B 2.24

MW068B 7.29

MW061B 1.64 SABI NE-NE

CHES

NA V IG A TI O N CHANNEL

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_Contours.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-1 Water Level Elevations in the Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone - May 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/10/2006 Property Boundary Note: Water level elevations are in ft above MSL. Water level contour interval is 0.5 ft. Water level data contoured by hand. Shallow Monitor Well Locations 

## @ A
Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Groundwater Contours MW068B 7.29 Monitor Well ID and Water Level Elevation

* Image Data: Provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Map Projection is NAD 83 State Plane (feet) South Central TX. Date Flown: 2005

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS SM136 (mg/kg) Depth (ft bgs) 0.5 - 1.67

Aluminum 20000 Antimony 4.73 Arsenic 13.3 Barium 540 Beryllium 0.367 Cadmium 7.24 Calcium 79000 Chromium, Total 55 Cobalt 16.9 Copper 373 Iron 103000 Lead 574 Magnesium 8150 Manganese 534 Mercury 0.134 Nickel 43.8 Potassium 1880 Selenium 4.68 Silver 5.23 Sodium 1230 Vanadium 29.9 Zinc 4140

SM142 (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Depth (ft bgs) 0 - 2 5 - 6

Aluminum 10800 Antimony 4.1 Arsenic 8.4 Barium 135 Beryllium 0.646 Cadmium 0.387 Calcium 14500 Chromium, Total 24.5 Cobalt 9.91 Copper 168 Iron 52600 Lead 171 Magnesium 2280 Manganese 299 Mercury 0.0678 Nickel 25.8 Potassium 1460 Selenium ND Silver 2.42 Sodium 1490 Vanadium 21.9 Zinc 377 11400 11.7 5.56 312 0.319 0.807 10300 81.1 9.11 526 57400 589 1430 282 1.04 26 892 ND 2.86 1270 17 1040 SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL MW068B MW068A

MW061B MW061A S M140 (m g/kg) De pth (ft bgs) 0.5-2 7 .5- 8 21.5-22 21.5-22FD

A lum inum A ntim ony A rseni c B arium B ery l li um Ca dm ium Ca lc ium Ch r om ium
, T o tal Co balt Co pper Ir on L ead M agnes ium M anganes e M er c ury Ni ck el P otas si um S ele nium S il v er S odi um V anadi um Zi nc 1 4100 2 .7 6 .15 1 68 0 .721 0 .589 6 620 2 0.9 6 .64 7 4.2 2 8400 1 20 2 180 1 91 0 .121 1 4.9 2 220 ND 1 .35 1 860 2 5.1 2 93 9 290 ND 5 .05 5 9.6 0 .61 1 1 .13 4 250 1 2.3 7 .36 1 4.5 2 2400 7 5.6 2 630 1 81 0 .532 9 .45 1 670 ND 1 .13 1 590 2 0.1 7 4.3 9 850 ND 6 .26 5 2.5 0 .661 0 .635 2 330 1 2.3 7 .1 1 1 .7 1 4100 4 2.5 2 900 1 93 0 .0871 1 0.3 1 910 ND 0 .703 1 770 2 0.8 5 9.2 1 1 200 3 .19 5 1 25 0 .61 0 .554 9 040 1 8.7 5 .24 7 6.8 2 3000 1 80 1 900 1 58J 0 .18 1 3.5 1 550 ND 1 .51 6 19 2 2.3 2 79 S M138 (m g/kg) De pth (ft bgs) 0-2 1 1.5

- 12 20-22 20

- 22FD

A lum inum A ntim ony A rseni c B arium B ery l li um Ca dm ium Ca lc ium Ch r om ium
, T o tal Co balt Co pper Ir on L ead M agnes ium M anganes e M er c ury Ni ck el P otas si um S ele nium S il v er S odi um V anadi um Zi nc 5 680 ND 2 .64 1 08 0 .18 0 .304 2 2600 9 .3 2 .61 3 0.8 1 7900 1 29 1 070 1 1 9 0 .0267 3 .02 7 18 ND 0 .851 2 44 1 0.9 2 85 1 0600 ND 4 .58 4 9.9 0 .646 ND 1 760 1 1 .2 7 .48 4 .23 1 2600 9 .68 2 490 1 95 0 .03 9 1 760 ND 0 .46 1 380 2 1.9 3 7.8 1 2500 ND 4 .12 7 4 0 .686 ND 4 890 1 3.2 6 .6 7 .46 1 3700 2 3.7 2 670 1 67 0 .0253 8 .93 1 960 ND 0 .61 1 1 450 2 3.7 6 0 1 1 200 1 .84 5 .33 3 01 0 .625 0 .1 18 3 3000 1 4.1 4 .79 4 1.6 1 6300 5 9.7 2 010 1 34 0 .0901 1 1 .4 1 460 ND 0 .794 1 32 2 1.3 2 87 S M139 (m g/kg) De pth (ft bgs) 0-2 5

- 6 6-8

A lum inum A ntim ony A rseni c B arium B ery l li um Ca dm ium Ca lc ium Ch r om ium
, T o tal Co balt Co pper Ir on L ead M agnes ium M anganes e M er c ury Ni ck el P otas si um S ele nium S il v er S odi um V anadi um Zi nc 1 3800 6 .88 1 4.3 3 79 0 .358 7 .77 2 4900 6 1.2 1 6.6 5 47 1 34000

7 18 2 450 6 93 0 .0429 3 4.6 1 340 ND 5 .71 8 91 2 3.4 1 500 1 8100 ND 8 .98 9 6.8 1 .08 ND 4 650 1 7.7 1 4.1 1 1 .3 1 8000 1 8.1 3 150 9 4.9 0 .128 2 1.1 3 1 10 ND 0 .689 4 98 3 3 7 2.6 1 3700 ND 1 2.2 1 63 0 .702 0 .913 1 5900 3 2.1 1 1 1 1 5 7 4500 2 64 1 950 4 85 0 .214 2 3 1 280 ND 2 .31 2 46 3 0.5 5 63

S M137 (m g/kg) De pth (ft bgs) 2-4 7-8

A lum inum A ntim ony A rseni c B arium B ery l li um Ca dm ium Ca lc ium Ch r om ium
, T o tal Co balt Co pper Ir on L ead M agnes ium M anganes e M er c ury Ni ck el P otas si um S ele nium S il v er S odi um V anadi um Zi nc 6 030 ND 9 .71 4 3.3 0 .138 ND 5 230 3 4.9 1 5.4 1 1 7 3 29000

6 41 9 53 1 350 0 .467 1 5.3 6 12 ND 7 .01 4 24 2 4.1 1 440 8 770 1 .97 5 .05 1 37 0 .526 0 .959 2 1800

2 5 4 .21 5 7.2 1 5100 1 1 8 2 380 1 88 0 .127 1 6.4 1 1 90 1 .99 0 .991 2 71 1 8.6 6 03 S M141 (m g/kg) De pth (ft bgs) 0-2 5

- 6 6.5-8 6.5-8FD

A lum inum A ntim ony A rseni c B arium B ery l li um Ca dm ium Ca lc ium Ch r om ium
, T o tal Co balt Co pper Ir on L ead M agnes ium M anganes e M er c ury Ni ck el P otas si um S ele nium S il v er S odi um V anadi um Zi nc 1 4700 3 .39 5 .45 3 19 0 .571 2 .58 2 1300 4 5.9 1 3.4 2 91 1 26000

9 51 2 400 5 90 0 .207 1 4.5 2 140 ND 1 3.9 1 290 2 3.9 2 910 1 9700 ND 8 .55 9 2.9 1 .03 ND 4 510 1 7.6 5 .22 1 3.4 2 1500 2 5.6 2 490 3 86 0 .0303 8 .66 2 060 ND 0 .706 1 310 3 5.6 5 6.1 1 6200 ND 1 2.8 8 9 0 .904 ND 3 630 1 3.5 4 .1 1 4.8 1 3400

2 5 2 080 1 30 0 .0398 7 .25 1 830 ND 0 .328 1 1 80 2 6.5 4 4= 1 2600 0 .504 3 .99 7 2.1 0 .559 0 .358 1 1 1 00 1 7.5 5 .48 6 4.7 2 4100 1 32 1 660 2 00 0 .0572

1 2 1 560 ND 1 .88 6 42 1 9.9 1 78

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Soil_Metals.mxd 200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-2 Metals Detections in Soil Samples - May 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 9/20/2006 Property Boundary Soil Boring Locations Shallow Monitor Well Locations Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Note: ft - Feet bgs - Below Ground Surface mg/kg - Milligrams Per Kilogram FD - Field Duplicate ND - Not Detected

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## @ A @ A @ A 

# ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( @ A

@ A

FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

M W 1 37

M W 1 36

SA B I NE -NE C HE S

NA V IG A TI O N CHA

N NE L 

### S M 1 39

M W 1 1 6B M W 1 1 6A

M W 0 68B M W 0 68A

M W 0 61B M W 0 61A

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Soil_SVOC.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-3 SVOC Detection in Soil Samples - May 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006 Property Boundary Soil Boring Locations 

## ! ( Shallow Monitor Well Locations 

## @ A Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Note: ft - Feet bgs - Below Ground Surface ug/kg - Micrograms Per Kilogram FD - Field Duplicate ND - Not Detected 120 Bis(2

- Ethy lhe xy l) Ph thala te Depth (5

- 6 F T) ( ug / kg) SM141

120 Bis(2

- Ethy lhe xy l) Ph thala te Depth (5

- 6 F T) ( ug / kg) SM141 S M138 (ug /kg)
Dep th ( ft b gs) 1 1.5-12 20-22 20-22(F D)

B enz yl B uty l Phthal ate 84 0 ND ND B is ( 2-Ethylhe x yl) Phthal ate 17200 491 998

S M142 (ug /kg)
Dep th ( ft b gs) 0-2 5- 6

2 ,4- Di m ethy l phenol 2

- Meth y ln aphthalen e A cenap hthene A cenap hthy l ene A nthracene B enz o(a)Anthrac ene B enz o(a)Pyr ene B enz o(b)Fluoranthene B enz o(g,h,i ) P er ylen e B enz o(k ) Fluo r anthe ne B enz yl B uty l Phthal ate B is ( 2-Ethylhe x yl) Phthal ate Carbazole Chrysene Cres ols , m p Di benzofur an Di -N -Butyl P hthalat e Fl uor a nthene Fl uor e ne Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyr ene Nap hthalene P henanthrene P henol P y rene ND ND ND 5 830 1 9000 1 0800 1 0800 1 5100 7 320 4 330 ND ND 9 720 1 5500 ND ND ND 1 8300 3 440 4 810 2 360 1 6100 ND 1 3700 8 020 9 020 4 410 ND 6 390 5 390 3 750 4 990 ND ND 2 6200 7 9200 3 870 5 240 1 14 00 4 130 3 3200 1 2800 6 190 ND 3 3900 1 9500 6 510 9 400 S M140 (ug /kg)
Dep th ( ft b gs) 7.5-8 21.5-22 21.5-22(FD)

2

- Meth y ln aphthalen e 2,170 ND ND A cenap hthene 1,480 ND ND A nthracene 6,290 ND ND B enz o(a)Anthrac ene 2,0 50 ND ND B enz o(a)Pyr ene 1, 470 ND ND B enz o(b)Fluoranthene 1,640 N D ND B is ( 2-Ethylhe x yl) Phthal ate 1,920 138 491 Carbazole 1,520 Chrysene 4,170 Di benzofur an 1,260 Fl uor a nthene 5,460 Fl uor e ne 2,760 Nap hthalene 2,170 P henanthrene 10,600 P y rene 6,300 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 38 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4 91 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2 170 1 480 6 290 2 050 1 470 1 640 1 920 1 520 4 170 1 260 5 460 2 760 2 170 1 0600 6 300

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

### FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

M W 06 8A M W1 16B ( ug/L)

A r se nic 12

. 7

B a rium 5 55

Ca lcium 201 000

Chr o m ium
, T o ta l 3

. 9 7

I r o n 203 0

Le a d 2.26

M a gn e s i u m 101 00 0

M a ng a ne se 14 00

Nicke l 164

P o t a ss ium 3 950 0

S e le niu m ND

S o dium 591 000

V

a n a diu m 1.87

Zinc 48

. 1 M W13 6 (ug/L)

A lu m inum 12 500

A r se nic 22

. 3

B a rium 122 0

B e ry lli u m 0.68 4

Ca d m ium 1.22

Ca lcium 198 000

Chr o m ium
, T o ta l 1 4.5

Co b a lt 5.87

Co p pe r 31

. 4

I r o n 35 800

Le a d 71

M a gn e s i u m 317 00 0

M a ng a ne se 83 90

Nicke l 13.6

P o t a ss ium 6 340 0

S e le niu m ND

S o dium 172 000 0

V

a n a diu m 24

. 6

Zinc 25 8
M W 06 8B M W13 7 (ug/L) N FD

A lu m inum 866 4 ,790

A r se nic 22

. 7 1 7.2

B a rium 5 73 517

B e ry lli u m N D 0.58

Ca d m ium N D 0.457

Ca lcium 137 000 12 900 0

Co b a lt 4

. 9 4 N D

Co p pe r ND 1 6.7

I r o n 150 0 59 10

Le a d 2.47 1 8.5

M a gn e s i u m 230 00 0 21 1 00 0

M a ng a ne se 55 10 5 290

M e rcur y N D 0

. 0 355

Nicke l 14 20

P o t a ss ium 6 540 0 64 00 0

S e le niu m ND N D

S o dium 142 000 0 139 000 0

V

a n a diu m 7.73 1 6.7

Zinc 70

. 9 13 5 M W 06 1B M W 06 1A S M 1 41

S M 1 42 S M 1 40 S M 1 39 S M 1 38

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_Metal.mxd 200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-4 Total Metals Detections In Ground Water - May 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 9/20/2006 Property Boundary Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Soil Boring Locations Shallow Monitor Well Locations

Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Note: ug/L - Micrograms Per Liter N - Normal FD - Field Duplicate ND - Not Detected

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

### FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

M W137 (u g/ L) N FD

B arium , D is so lv ed 557 57 9

C admium
, Dis s olv e d 0.36 5 0.7 14

C alc ium, D iss olved 1 46000 163 000

C oba lt, D is solved 4.91 4.79

C opp er , D is solved 2. 35 5.1

I ron, D is so lv ed 752 996

L ead, D iss olved N D 2.37

M agn esium, D is solved 239000 257000

M ang anes e, Di ss olved 6350 723 0

Nic ke l, Di ss olved 14. 6 14. 5

Potas s ium, Dis s olv e d 591 00 543 00

S elenium, D iss olved N D ND

S odium, D iss olved 1290 000 1290000

V anadium, D iss olved 4.5 9 5. 2

Z inc
, D iss olved 72.8 72 M W136 (u g/ L )

A rsen ic, D is so lv ed 14. 1

B arium , D is so lv ed 1250

C admium
, Dis s olv e d 0.44 7

C alc ium, D iss olved 1 89000

C oba lt, D is solved 1.65

I ron, D is so lv ed 27800

M agn esium, D is solved 300000

M ang anes e, Di ss olved 7680

Nic ke l, Di ss olved 7. 41

Potas s ium, Dis s olv e d 604 00

S elenium, D iss olved N D

S odium, D iss olved 1550 000

Z inc
, D iss olved 34.8



### M W 06 8B M W 06 8A

M W 06 1B M W 06 1A

SA B IN E -NE CHE

S

NA V IG A TIO N CHA

NN EL 

### S M 1 41

S M 1 42 S M 1 40

S M 1 39 S M 1 38

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_MetalDiss.mxd 200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-5 Dissolved Metals Detections In Ground Water - May 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 9/20/2006 Property Boundary Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Soil Boring Locations Shallow Monitor Well Locations

Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Note: ug/L - Micrograms Per Liter N - Normal FD - Field Duplicate ND - Not Detected 36.2 Zinc , D issol ved 1.69 Vanadiu m , Dissol ved 521000 Sodiu m , D issol ved 9.41 Selen iu m , D issol ved 39200 Potassium , D issol ved 170 Nickel
, Dissol ved 1310 Manganese, Dissol v ed 93700 Magnesium , D issol ved 2.49 Lead, D issol ved 981 Iron, Dissol ve d 203000 Calciu m , Dissol ved 543 Bariu m , D issol ved Depth (0 F T) ( ug / L) MW116B

36.2 Zinc , D issol ved 1.69 Vanadiu m , Dissol ved 521000 Sodiu m , D issol ved 9.41 Selen iu m , D issol ved 39200 Potassium , D issol ved 170 Nickel
, Dissol ved 1310 Manganese, Dissol v ed 93700 Magnesium , D issol ved 2.49 Lead, D issol ved 981 Iron, Dissol ve d 203000 Calciu m , Dissol ved 543 Bariu m , D issol ved Depth (0 F T) ( ug / L) MW116B

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## @ A @ A @ A 

# ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( @ A

@ A FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS

M W1 37 (u g/ L ) N FD

Die th yl Phtha la te A ce n a p hthe ne A n t h ra c e ne B e nz o ( a ) A n thra c e ne B e nz o ( a ) P y re ne B e nz o ( b) Fluo r o a nthe ne B e nz o ( g,h,i)Pe ry le ne B e nz o ( k) Fluo ra nthe n e Ch ry se ne Fluo r a n t h e n e Fluo r e n e I n de n o ( 1,2,3- c ,d) Pyr e n e Na phtha le n e P h e n a nth re n e P y re ne 2.21 0.028 0.004 2 0.002 1 0.003 7

ND ND 0.003 7

ND 0.004 4 0.010 8

ND 0.024 7 0.01 1 9 0.007 9 4.28 0.026 5 0.005 9 0.003 5 0.003 0.003 6 0.002 7

ND 0.003 5 0.012 4 0.01 1 1 0.002 7 0.023 0.016 1 0.015 4 M W1 16 B (ug / L) N

Die th yl Phtha la te A ce n a p hthe ne A ce n a p hthy le n e A n t h ra c e ne B e nz o ( a ) A n thra c e ne Ch ry se ne Fluo r a n t h e n e Fluo r e n e Na phtha le n e P h e n a nth re n e P y re ne M W1 36 (u g/ L ) N

Die th yl Phtha la te A ce n a p hthe ne B e nz o ( a ) A n thra c e ne B e nz o ( a ) P y re ne B e nz o ( b) Fluo r o a nthe ne B e nz o ( g,h,i)Pe ry le ne B e nz o ( k) Fluo ra nthe n e Ch ry se ne Fluo r a n t h e n e Fluo r e n e I n de n o ( 1,2,3- c ,d) Pyr e n e Na phtha le n e P h e n a nth re n e P y re ne 2.82 0.01 1 4 0.003 2 0.002 8 0.003 4 0.001 8 0.001 5 0.003 3 0.010 1 0.004 0.001 8 0.008 5 0.010 2 0.010 1 1.83 1.12 0.040 8 0.019 9 0.007 8 0.004 6 0.532 0.057 3 0.014 2 0.006 3 0.297

M W 0 68B M W 0 68A

M W 0 61B M W 0 61A

SA B I NE -NE C HE S

NA V IG A TI O N CHA

N NE L 

### S M 1 41

S M 1 42 S M 1 40

S M 1 39 S M 1 38

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_SVOC.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-6 SVOC Detections In Ground Water - May 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006 Property Boundary Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Soil Boring Locations 

## ! ( Shallow Monitor Well Locations 

## @ A

Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Note: ug/L - Micrograms Per Liter N - Normal FD - Field Duplicate ND - Not Detected

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]@ A @ A @ A 

### ! (
! ( ! (

! ( ! ( !

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

! @ A

@ A 

### FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS A -SD (m g / kg) N Alum in um Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a d mi u m C a l cium C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 130 00 6 191 0.7 37 0.1 08 282 0 6.3 7 15. 1 15. 2 167 00 288 0 423 0 297 0.0 396 525 0 12. 4 18. 7 4.6 6 0.2 8 25. 5 94. 7 B -SD (m g / kg) N Alum in um Antimon y Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a d mi u m C a l cium C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 913 0 0.1 21 4.5 135 0.5 27 0.0 913 143 0 4.7 8 1 1. 6 7.8 2 126 00 201 0 282 0 173 0.0 288 332 0 8.5 9 15. 8 3.1 5 0.0 752 18. 8 63. 2 C -SD (m g / kg) N Alum in um Antimon y Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a d mi u m C a l cium C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m Z inc 155 00 0.2 37 5.7 3 264 0.7 68 0.1 256 0 6.7 16. 6 8.6 2 171 00 320 0 462 0 405 0.0 405 729 0 12. 2 15. 7 3.6 9 0.0 966 59. 7

D -SD (m g / kg) N Alum in um Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a d mi u m C a l cium C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 162 00 5.2 9 43. 5 0.8 26 0.0 846

938 5.5 8 17. 3 6.0 4 141 00 297 0 351 0 65. 7 0.0 201 394 0 1 1. 3 1 1. 5 2.2 2 0.0 826 26. 5 44. 4 H -SD (m g / kg) N FD Alum in um Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a l cium C a d mi u m C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Sodi u m Mercury N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 1 1 1 00 4.1 9 37. 8 0.6 25 144 0 0.1 58 6.0 9 12 5.2 4 150 00 203 0 293 0 138 381 0 0.0 215 9.1 5 12. 1 3.8 7 0.0 851 21. 8 84. 1 102 00 5.0 3 40. 4 0.6 25 148 0 0.1 31 7.0 1 1 1. 3 5.6 4 143 00 194 0 284 0 149 359 0 0.0 246 9.3 7 13 3.6 3 0.0 806 20. 6 66 G- S D (m g/k g ) N Alum in um Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a l cium C a d mi u m C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 1 14 00 5.3 2 36. 6 0.7 47 167 0 0.1 33 4.3 7 12. 7 8.8 5 126 00 219 0 343 0 165 0.0 215 472 0 10. 6 12. 5 2.9 6 0.0 837 23. 7 36. 8 F -SD (m g/kg) N Alum in um Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a l cium C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m Sil ve r T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 404 0 3.5 9 44. 4 0.2 66 556 3.1 3 6.7 7.3 9 984 0 793 1 15 0 123 0.0 232 205 0 5.3 8 10. 9 2.4 1 0.2 63 0.0 436 10. 5 27. 2 E- S D ( m g/k g ) N Alum in um Ar

se nic Barium Bery l lium C a d mi u m C a l cium C o b alt C h r

o m ium, T ota l C o p p e r I r o n Pota ssi u m Magne si u m Man g a ne s e Mercury Sodi u m N ickel Lea d Selen i u m T h alli u m V an ad iu m Z inc 436 0 4.1 2 27. 7 0.2 84 0.0 989 104 0 3.1 8 6.3 2 18. 3 1 1 1 00 717 105 0 127 0.0 376 161 0 8.0 7 15. 8 3.8 5 0.0 347 9.8 9 71. 2 MW116B MW116A

MW068B MW068A

MW061B A SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL MW136

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Sed_Metals.mxd 

# £

300 0 300 150

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-7 Metals Detections in Sediment Samples - June 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006 Property Boundary Soil Boring Locations 

## ! ( Shallow Monitor Well Locations 

## @ A
Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Location of Grab Sample for Composite Sediment Sample

Note: mg/kg - Milligrams Per Kilogram N - Normal FD - Field Duplicate

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

## @ A @ A @ A 

## ! (
! ( ! (

! ( ! ( !

! ! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

! 

## @ A

@ A C-SD ( mg /kg ) Be n z o (a )An th ra ce ne Be n z o (a )Py re ne Be n z o (b )Fl uo ra nth e ne Chry se n e Flu o r a n th e n e Phe na n thr e n e Py r e n e B -SD ( mg /kg ) Ant hra ce n e Be n z o (a )An th ra ce ne Be n z o (a )Py re ne Be n z o (b )Fl uo ra nth e ne Be n z o (g ,h ,i) Pe r y l e n e Chry se n e Flu o r a n th e n e Ind e n o (1, 2,3 -c,d )Py re n e Phe na n thr e n e Py r e n e 

## FORMER WASTEWATER IMPOUNDMENTS A -SD ( mg /kg ) Be n z o (a )An th ra ce ne Be n z o (a )Py re ne Be n z o (b )Fl uo ra nth e ne Be n z o (k )F lu o ra nt he ne Chry se n e Flu o r a n th e n e Phe na n thr e n e Py r e n e
10 .0 20 .3 20 .4 26 .3 16 .6 29 .6 33 .5 10 .9 13 .7 44 .2

8.2 3

9.2 10 .5 8.0 9 1 1.0 9.6 7 14 .4

D -SD ( mg /kg ) Be n z o (a )An th ra ce ne Be n z o (a )Py re ne Be n z o (b )Fl uo ra nth e ne Be n z o (g ,h ,i) Pe r y l e n e Chry se n e Flu o r a n th e n e Py r e n e 10 .8 12 .3 15 .7 9.9 2 1 1.8 12 .8 19 .8

E-SD (mg /k g) Be n z o (a )An th ra n ce n e Chry se n e Flu o r a n th e n e Phe na n thr e n e Py r e n e 25 .1 19 .9 47 .4 23 .4 49 .0

F-SD (m g/k g) 2-M e thy l na ph th a l e n e Be n z o (a )An th ra ce ne Be n z o (a )Py re ne Be n z o (b )Fl uo ra nth e ne Be n z o (g ,h ,i) Pe r y l e n e Chry se n e Flu o r a n th e n e Na p ht ha le ne Phe na n thr e n e Py r e n e 17 .9 12 .6 1 1.7 13 .7 9.0 6 10 .6 14 .8 10 .6 8.8 6 33 .7 G

- SD (m g/ kg ) Flu o r a n th e n e 5. 73 H-SD 56 54 .8 14 3 29 .8 82 .6 17 0 58 .9 10 4

MW116B MW116A

MW068B MW068A

MW061B MW061A SM141

SM142 SM140 SM139

MW137 MW136

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Sed_Metals.mxd 

# £

200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

### Figure 3-8 SVOC Detections In Sediment Samples - June 2006 

## LEGEND

State Marine Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006 Property Boundary Soil Boring Locations 

## ! ( Shallow Monitor Well Locations 

## @ A
Area of Interest

Landfill Area Road Navigation Channel Sunken Barge Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Location of Grab Sample for Composite Sediment Sample

Note: mg/kg - Milligrams Per Kilogram

# [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]